| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Race conditions with checkpointer and shutdown |
| Date: | 2019-04-29 17:04:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20190429170430.wjuz4mgy72ee6rhj@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-04-29 12:55:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Hm, I'm not convinced that's OK. What if there's a network hickup? We'll
> > wait until there's an OS tcp timeout, no?
>
> No. send() is only going to block if there's no room in the kernel's
> buffers, and that would only happen if we send a lot of data in between
> waits to receive data. Which, AFAIK, the walreceiver never does.
> We might possibly need to improve that code in the future, but I don't
> think there's a need for it today.
Ah, right.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-04-29 17:16:39 | Re: "long" type is not appropriate for counting tuples |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-29 16:55:31 | Re: Race conditions with checkpointer and shutdown |