On 2016-05-05 13:30:42 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > That was a red herring. I was confused because SUSv2 and POSIX call > this argument 'errorfds' and say that sockets *also* tell you about > errors this way. (Many/most real OSs call the argument 'exceptfds' > instead and only use it to tell you about out-of-band data and > possibly implementation specific events for devices, pseudo-terminals > etc. If you want to know about errors on a socket it's enough to have > it in readfds/writefds, and insufficient to have it only in > errorfds/exceptfds unless you can find a computer that actually > conforms to POSIX.)
Correct, exceptfds is pretty much meaningless for anything we do in postgres. We rely on select returning a socket as read/writeable if the socket has hung up. That's been the case *before* the recent WaitEventSet refactoring, so I think we're fairly solid on relying on that. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
