From: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
---|---|
To: | "'pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: killing process question |
Date: | 2002-09-19 15:58:55 |
Message-ID: | 3D8A4197.32559.14A47941@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 19 Sep 2002 at 11:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> writes:
> > I guess a backend should terminate as if connection is closed. What say?
>
> No.
>
> It will terminate when it tries to read the next query from the client.
OK. But what if it never reads anything? I mean if the client dies after a
complete transaction i.e. no input pending for either back end or client, will
it just sit around waiting for select to signal that fd?(AFAIU, that's how
things goes in there..)
Clearly we have a case where backend is hung persumably. Either it has to have
an explanation(OK client did aborted abruptly) and/or a possible corrective
action..
Just some thoughts..
Bye
Shridhar
--
QOTD: "I won't say he's untruthful, but his wife has to call the dog for
dinner."
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-19 16:05:39 | Re: keeping a log / debug info |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-19 15:58:24 | Re: Memory Errors... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2002-09-19 16:00:37 | Re: Proposal for resolving casting issues |
Previous Message | Johnson, Shaunn | 2002-09-19 15:55:18 | Re: killing process question |