From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Incomplete startup packet errors |
Date: | 2019-03-02 03:25:50 |
Message-ID: | 3102.1551497150@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 3/1/19 6:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No patch referenced, but I assume you mean only for the
>> zero-bytes-received case, right? No objection if so.
> Patch proposed by Christoph Berg is here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190228151336.GB7550%40msg.df7cb.de
Meh. That doesn't silence only the zero-bytes case, and I'm also
rather afraid of the fact that it's changing COMMERROR to something
else. I wonder whether (if client_min_messages <= DEBUG1) it could
result in trying to send the error message to the already-lost
connection. It might be that that can't happen, but I think a fair
amount of rather subtle (and breakable) analysis may be needed.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shawn Debnath | 2019-03-02 05:05:32 | Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2019-03-02 01:55:11 | Re: [HACKERS] Incomplete startup packet errors |