Re: Dangling Client Backend Process - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Dangling Client Backend Process
Date
Msg-id 20151030150329.GC6677@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Dangling Client Backend Process  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Dangling Client Backend Process
Re: Dangling Client Backend Process
List pgsql-hackers
On 2015-10-30 10:57:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > adding a parseInput(conn) into the loop yields the expected
> > FATAL:  57P01: terminating connection due to unexpected postmaster exit
> > Is there really any reason not to do that?
> 
> Might work, but it probably needs some study:

Yea, definitely. I was just at pgconf.eu's keynote catching up on a
talk. No fully thought through proposal's to be expected ;)

> (a) is it safe

I don't immediately see why not.

> (b) is this the right place / are there other places

I think it's ok for the send failure case, in a quick lookthrough I
didn't find anything else for writes - I'm not entirely sure all read
cases are handled tho, but it seems less likely to be mishandles.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Dangling Client Backend Process
Next
From: Fabio Oliveira De Mendonca
Date:
Subject: Re: ExclusiveLock on PostgreSQL - Fabio Mendonça