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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection
Date
Msg-id 5738.991862804@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection  (ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers))
List pgsql-hackers
ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers) writes:
> 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.

We already loop for EINTR.  I'm just wondering what to do after we've
given up retrying.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: And what about that Debugfile?
Next
From: Martín Marqués
Date:
Subject: something smells bad