Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1wCf9LeQXRge1ty9uDHEQRi2v9Mpe2Pox1xVdG6TZ2XcA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> The problem is that I don't know of any way to detect eof on a socket
> other than trying to read from it (or calling poll or select). So the
> server would have to periodically poll the client even when it's not
> expecting any data. The inefficiency is annoying enough and it still
> won't detect the eof immediately.

Do we know how inefficient it is, compared to the baseline work done
by CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() and its affiliated machinery?

...

>
> I'm surprised this is the first time we're hearing people complain
> about this. I know I've seen similar behaviour from Mysql and thought
> to myself that represented pretty poor behaviour and assumed Postgres
> did better.

I've seen other complaints about it (and made at least one myself)

Cheers,

Jeff



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kodamasimham Pridhvi (MT2012066)"
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal for XML Schema Validation
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump and schema names