| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Dangling Client Backend Process |
| Date: | 2015-10-30 15:03:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20151030150329.GC6677@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-10-30 10:57:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > adding a parseInput(conn) into the loop yields the expected
> > FATAL: 57P01: terminating connection due to unexpected postmaster exit
> > Is there really any reason not to do that?
>
> Might work, but it probably needs some study:
Yea, definitely. I was just at pgconf.eu's keynote catching up on a
talk. No fully thought through proposal's to be expected ;)
> (a) is it safe
I don't immediately see why not.
> (b) is this the right place / are there other places
I think it's ok for the send failure case, in a quick lookthrough I
didn't find anything else for writes - I'm not entirely sure all read
cases are handled tho, but it seems less likely to be mishandles.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2015-10-30 15:29:09 | Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-10-30 14:57:45 | Re: Dangling Client Backend Process |