On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 03:29, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote:
> On Oct10, 2011, at 21:25 , Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 23:46, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote:
>>> It'd be nice to generally terminate a backend if the client vanishes, but so
>>> far I haven't had any bright ideas. Using FASYNC and F_SETOWN unfortunately
>>> sends a signal *everytime* the fd becomes readable or writeable, not only on
>>> EOF. Doing select() in CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS seems far too expensive. We 
>>> could
>>> make the postmaster keep the fd's of around even after forking a backend, 
>>> and
>>> make it watch for broken connections using select(). But with a large 
>>> max_backends
>>> settings, we'd risk running out of fds in the postmaster...
>> Ugh. Yeah. But at least catching it and terminating it when we *do*
>> notice it's down would certainly make sense...
> I'll try to put together a patch that sets a flag if we discover a broken
> connection in pq_flush, and tests that flag in CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS. Unless 
> you
> wanna, of course.

Please do, I won't have time to even think about it until after
pgconf.eu anyway ;)

 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to