Re: [HACKERS] Re: SIGPIPE gripe

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: SIGPIPE gripe
Date: 1998-05-04 21:16:36
Message-ID: 14199.894316596@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould) writes:
>> So ... since we're altering the protocol anyway ... the right fix is
>> to alter the protocol a little more.
>>
>> Client waits for "Z" ; if get "E" instead, BE startup failed.

> BE fails, client gets SIGPIPE? or client waits forever?

Neither: the client detects EOF on its input and realizes that the
backend failed. Already done and tested.

(SIGPIPE is only for *write* on a closed channel, not *read*.
Read just returns EOF.)

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message list 1998-05-04 21:21:41 OK to send e-mail?
Previous Message Tom Lane 1998-05-04 21:10:46 Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql6.3.2 libdld and the twilight zone.