On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 08:34:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Is there a server equivalent to PQstatus? If there were one, couldn't the server periodically ping the client? -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
