From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: [doc fix] PG10: wroing description on connect_timeout when multiple hosts are specified |
Date: | 2017-05-17 03:58:42 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQOaUgczXUaezFT7TJARDyAXok8+edjOoay__wf525-qA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier
>> pqWait is internal to libpq, so we are free to set up what we want here.
>> Still I think that we should be consistent with what pqSocketCheck returns:
>
> Please let this what it is now for the same reason Robert mentioned.
>
>> + int ret = 0;
>> + int timeout = 0;
>> The declaration of "ret" should be internal in the for(;;) loop.
>
> Done.
>
>> + /* Attempt connection to the next host, starting the
>> connect_timeout timer */
>> + pqDropConnection(conn, true);
>> + conn->addr_cur = conn->connhost[conn->whichhost].addrlist;
>> + conn->status = CONNECTION_NEEDED;
>> + finish_time = time(NULL) + timeout;
>> + }
>> I think that it would be safer to not set finish_time if
>> conn->connect_timeout is NULL. I agree that your code works because
>> pqWaitTimed() will never complain on timeout reached if finish_time is -1.
>> That's for robustness sake.
>
> Done, but I'm not sure how this contributes to the robustness. I guess you were concerned just in case pqWaitTimed() returned 0 (timeout) even when it should not.
Thanks for the updated patch. This looks good to me.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-17 04:08:17 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-05-17 03:34:56 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |