From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: An extra error for client disconnection on Windows |
Date: | 2016-09-13 13:00:32 |
Message-ID: | 20160913130032.GA391646@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > If we take a policy to try to imitate the behavior of some
> > reference platform (specifically Linux) on other platforms, this
> > is required disguising. Another potential policy on this problem
> > is "following the platform's behavior". From this viewpoint, this
> > message should be shown to users because Windows says
> > so. Especially for socket operations, the simultion layer is
> > intending the former for non-error behaviors, but I'm not sure
> > about the behaviors on errors.
>
> The more you hack windows, the more you'll notice that it is full of
> caveats, behavior exceptions, and that it runs in its way as nothing
> else in this world... This patch looks like a tempest in a teapot at
> the end. Why is it actually a problem to show this message? Just
> useless noise? If that's the only reason let's drop the patch and move
> on.
Yeah, I looked into this a few days ago and that was my conclusion also:
let's drop this.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2016-09-13 13:08:39 | Re: kqueue |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-13 12:59:57 | Re: cost_sort() may need to be updated |