From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Question regarding SSL code in backend and frontend |
Date: | 2012-04-04 16:18:32 |
Message-ID: | 27932.1333556312@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 17:57, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I rather wonder whether the #ifdef WIN32 bit in the backend isn't dead
>> code though. If the port isn't in nonblock mode, we shouldn't really
>> get here at all, should we?
> Not in a position to look at the code right now, but first guess - we
> *always* have the underlying socket in nonblocking mode on win32, so
> we can deliver signals properly.
Ah, I think you're right. So actually, the retry looping is expected
to be never-invoked in the Unix case. If it did happen, it'd be a busy
wait loop, which would probably be a bad thing ... but it shouldn't
happen, and not clear it's worth adding any code to consider the
possibility more carefully.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-04 16:22:13 | Re: invalid search_path complaints |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-04-04 16:13:58 | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |