Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis writes:
> > On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 23:15 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Was this ever addressed?
>
> > It doesn't appear to be fixed, and I don't see it on the TODO, either.
> > Should we add it there?
>
> +1. It likely wouldn't be real hard to fix, but given the l
Jeff Davis writes:
> On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 23:15 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Was this ever addressed?
> It doesn't appear to be fixed, and I don't see it on the TODO, either.
> Should we add it there?
+1. It likely wouldn't be real hard to fix, but given the lack of field
complaints I'm not
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 23:15 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Was this ever addressed?
>
It doesn't appear to be fixed, and I don't see it on the TODO, either.
Should we add it there?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
> ---
>
> Jeff
Was this ever addressed?
---
Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 21:45 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2009-03/msg00062.php
> > >
> > > It may or may not be a real bug, but
Jeff Davis writes:
> Thank you for the explanation. My initial thinking was that either
> DoingCommandRead would protect us (for SIGINT to the backend), or we
> were going to terminate the process anyway (for SIGTERM). But it sounds
> like it leaves us in a state so unsafe that we can't even abort
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 14:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> This patch is so wrong that it's scary. You can't have
> ImmediateInterruptOK true over the duration of any significant amount of
> backend processing --- as an example, if you take control away in the
> middle of a malloc call, you'll probably
Jeff Davis writes:
> Here is a patch that does what I think Heikki was suggesting. If a
> proper fix is non-trivial, then I assume there's some problem with my
> patch, but I'll post it for the archives anyway.
This patch is so wrong that it's scary. You can't have
ImmediateInterruptOK true over
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 12:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Where are we on this?
>
> Pretty much nowhere --- there's no proposed patch, and I don't think
> it's exactly trivial. Do you want to put it on TODO?
Here is a patch that does what I think Heikki was suggesting. If a
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Where are we on this?
Pretty much nowhere --- there's no proposed patch, and I don't think
it's exactly trivial. Do you want to put it on TODO?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
Where are we on this?
---
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Jeff Davis wrote:
> > "SIGINT -- The server disallows new connections and sends all existing
> > server processes SIGTERM, which will cause them to abort their current
>
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 15:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > I'm not too familiar with this code, but I think we could just enable
> > ImmediateInterruptOK in CopyGetData().
>
> Only if you are wanting to break things.
>
Doesn't DoingCommandRead protect us in the SIGINT
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 15:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > I'm not too familiar with this code, but I think we could just enable
> > ImmediateInterruptOK in CopyGetData().
>
> Only if you are wanting to break things.
>
> The reason we don't allow client read to be inter
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> I'm not too familiar with this code, but I think we could just enable
> ImmediateInterruptOK in CopyGetData().
Only if you are wanting to break things.
The reason we don't allow client read to be interrupted is the fear of
losing protocol sync on an incomplete messa
Jeff Davis wrote:
"SIGINT -- The server disallows new connections and sends all existing
server processes SIGTERM, which will cause them to abort their current
transactions and exit promptly."
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/server-shutdown.html
If you have an open COPY and no data is
Jeff Davis wrote:
The docs say:
"SIGINT -- The server disallows new connections and sends all existing
server processes SIGTERM, which will cause them to abort their current
transactions and exit promptly."
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/server-shutdown.html
If you have an open COPY
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 21:45 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2009-03/msg00062.php
> >
> > It may or may not be a real bug, but I didn't receive any response. If
> > you think it might be a bug, can you please add it to the open items?
>
> Hmm, odd I don't
16 matches
Mail list logo
