| From: | "Tristan Partin" <tristan(at)neon(dot)tech> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jelte Fennema-Nio" <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Shlok Kyal" <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: psql not responding to SIGINT upon db reconnection |
| Date: | 2024-04-03 14:20:36 |
| Message-ID: | D0AJY9Z5ZMZ9.2VJ9MN7NLKI2O@neon.tech |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed Apr 3, 2024 at 8:32 AM CDT, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 16:33, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Committed it, I did. My thanks for working on this issue, I extend.
>
> Looking at the committed version of this patch, the pg_unreachable
> calls seemed weird to me. 1 is actually incorrect, thus possibly
> resulting in undefined behaviour. And for the other call an imho
> better fix would be to remove the now 21 year unused enum variant,
> instead of introducing its only reference in the whole codebase.
>
> Attached are two trivial patches, feel free to remove both of the
> pg_unreachable calls.
Patches look good. Sorry about causing you to do some work.
--
Tristan Partin
Neon (https://neon.tech)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-03 14:27:01 | Re: Is it safe to cache data by GiST consistent function |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2024-04-03 14:18:35 | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock |