On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:19 AM Lars Kanis <lars@greiz-reinsdorf.de> wrote:
> The other way around would be to make sure on the client side, that the
> last message is retrieved before the RST packet arrives, so that no data
> is lost. This works mostly well through the sync API of libpq, but with
> the async API the trigger for data reception is outside of the scope of
> libpq, so that there's no way to ensure recv() is called quick enough,
> after the data was received but before RST arrives. On a local
> client+server combination there is only a gap of 0.5 milliseconds or so.
> I also didn't find a way to retrieve the enqueued data after RST
> arrived. Maybe there's a nasty hack to retrieve the data afterwards, but
> I didn't dig into assembly code and memory layout of Winsock internals.
Hmm. Well, if I understand how this works (and I'm not too familiar
with this Windows code so I maybe I don't), the postmaster duplicates
the socket into the child process (see
{write,read}_inheritable_socket()) and then closes its own handle (see
ServerLoop()'s call to StreamClose(port->sock)). What if the
postmaster kept the socket open, and then closed its copy after the
child exits? Then, I guess, maybe, Winsock socket state would live on
with a non-zero reference count and be able to perform the proper
graceful TCP shutdown dance, at least as long as the postmaster itself
is up. Various other ideas: don't do that, but duplicate the socket
back into the postmaster before exit, or into some other process, or
rewrite PostgreSQL to use threads...
