Re: Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers)
Subject Re: Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection
Date
Msg-id 20010606124322.Q18121@store.zembu.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 08:01:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Thoughts?  Is there anything about this that might be unsafe?  Should
> QueryCancel be set after *any* failure of recv() or send(), or only
> if certain errno codes are detected (and if so, which ones)?

Stevens identifies some errno codes that are not significant;
in particular, EINTR, EAGAIN, and EWOULDBLOCK.  Of these, maybe
only the first occurs on a blocking socket.

Nathan Myers
ncm@zembu.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: And what about that Debugfile?
Next
From: Thomas Lockhart
Date:
Subject: Re: Timestamp change - 8601 compliance