Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> There's no guarantee walreceiver will read the 'X' before trying to >> write() to the socket, so we can't rely on that to determine whether to >> suppress the "could not send data to client" message. > > s/walreceiver/walsender?
Right. >> We could try to read() from the socket after the write() has failed, to >> see if there's an 'X' message pending. Not sure it's worth it. I think >> we would have to put the socket into non-blocking mode before the >> read(), to avoid blocking if the write() failed for some other reason. >> Or select() to see if there's incoming data. I'm inclined to just not >> bother.. > > Umm.. if no action is taken, walsender process would remain until > it tries to write to the socket in that case. Is this OK? Oh, I think we need to fix that, I'm thinking of doing a select() in the loop to check that the socket hasn't been closed yet. I meant we don't need to try reading the 'X' to tell apart e.g a network problem from a standby that's shut down cleanly. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
