Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Allowing SIGPIPE to kill the backend is completely infeasible, as the
>> backend would be unable to release locks etc before dying.
> So the upshot is really not that ignoring SIGPIPE is specifically
> intended as the optimal solution but that writing a proper cleanup
> handler for SIGPIPE seems very difficult.
Well, if we did want to change this it would be far easier and safer to
do the other thing (ie, set QueryCancel upon noticing a write failure).
The question is whether doing either one is really a material
improvement, seeing that neither is going to provoke an abort
until/unless the backend actually tries to write something to the client.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
