From: | Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Entities created in one query not available in another in extended protocol |
Date: | 2015-06-14 16:35:21 |
Message-ID: | CADT4RqCoOzPYmZeHEYUdZrtAraCtqXmUGcq+Gntnq0zc_mxo7w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org> writes:
> > [ rely on non-blocking sockets to avoid deadlock ]
>
> Yeah, that's pretty much the approach libpq has taken: write (or read)
> when you can, but press on when you can't.
>
Good to hear.
> The main issue I'm concerned about
> > is SSL/TLS, which is a layer on top of the sockets and which might not
> work
> > well with non-blocking sockets...
>
> We have not had word of any such problem with libpq. It's possible that
> the intersection of SSL users with non-blocking-mode users is nil, but
> I kinda doubt that. You do need to interpret openssl's return codes
> correctly ...
>
I don't think there's a problem with non-blocking I/O and SSL per se, the
question is about the .NET TLS/SSL implementation Npgsql uses - so it's
really totally unrelated to PostgreSQL...
Shay
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-06-14 16:57:08 | Re: 9.5 release notes |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-06-14 15:49:25 | Re: On columnar storage |