Re: [HACKERS] Re: SIGPIPE gripe - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From dg@illustra.com (David Gould)
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: SIGPIPE gripe
Date
Msg-id 9805041931.AA02520@hawk.illustra.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SIGPIPE gripe  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: SIGPIPE gripe  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> So ... since we're altering the protocol anyway ... the right fix is
> to alter the protocol a little more.  Remember that "Z" message that
> the backend is now sending at the end of every query cycle?  What
> we ought to do is make the BE send "Z" at completion of startup,
> as well.  (In other words, "Z" will really mean "Ready for Query"
> rather than "Query Done".  This is actually easier to implement in
> postgres.c than the other way.)  Now the client's startup procedure
> looks like
>
>     ...
>
>     Client receives "AUTH_OK"
>
>     Client waits for "Z" ; if get "E" instead, BE startup failed.

BE fails, client gets SIGPIPE? or client waits forever?

-dg

David Gould           dg@illustra.com            510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468
Informix Software                      300 Lakeside Drive   Oakland, CA 94612
 - A child of five could understand this!  Fetch me a child of five.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: The Hermit Hacker
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Suggestions
Next
From: "Jackson, DeJuan"
Date:
Subject: RE: [QUESTIONS] COUNT (DISTINCT xxx) ?