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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Dangling Client Backend Process
Date
Msg-id 10481.1446212913@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Dangling Client Backend Process  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Dangling Client Backend Process  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Hmm.  ProcessInterrupts() signals some FATAL errors while the
> connection is idle, and rumor has it that that works: the client
> doesn't immediately read the FATAL error, but the next time it sends a
> query, it tries to read from the connection and sees the FATAL error
> at that time.  I wonder why that's not working here.

A likely theory is that the kernel is reporting failure to libpq's
send() because the other side of the connection is already gone.
This would be timing-dependent of course.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vladimir Borodin
Date:
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Replication slots and isolation levels
Next
From: Erik Rijkers
Date:
Subject: Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions