Tom,
> The consideration is that the application fails completely on server
> disconnect (because it gets SIGPIPE'd). This was long ago deemed
> unacceptable, and we aren't likely to change our opinion on that.
OK, understood. I'm guessing MSG_NOSIGNAL on the send() isn't portable
enough here?
> What disturbs me about your report is the suggestion that there are
> paths through that code that fail to protect against SIGPIPE. If so,
> we need to fix that.
I just missed the comment that pqsecure_read may end up writing to the
socket in the SSL case, so looks like all is fine here. We shouldn't see
a SIGPIPE from the recv() alone.
Cheers,
Jeremy
