Re: [HACKERS] Re: SIGPIPE gripe

From: dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould)
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: SIGPIPE gripe
Date: 1998-05-04 19:31:42
Message-ID: 9805041931.AA02520@hawk.illustra.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> So ... since we're altering the protocol anyway ... the right fix is
> to alter the protocol a little more. Remember that "Z" message that
> the backend is now sending at the end of every query cycle? What
> we ought to do is make the BE send "Z" at completion of startup,
> as well. (In other words, "Z" will really mean "Ready for Query"
> rather than "Query Done". This is actually easier to implement in
> postgres.c than the other way.) Now the client's startup procedure
> looks like
>
> ...
>
> Client receives "AUTH_OK"
>
> Client waits for "Z" ; if get "E" instead, BE startup failed.

BE fails, client gets SIGPIPE? or client waits forever?

-dg

David Gould dg(at)illustra(dot)com 510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468
Informix Software 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612
- A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jackson, DeJuan 1998-05-04 19:32:39 RE: [QUESTIONS] COUNT (DISTINCT xxx) ?
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 1998-05-04 19:18:15 Re: [HACKERS] Suggestions