On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> > I wonder if we ought to backport this further: e.g. walsender
> > continously uses nonblocking sockets via pq_getbyte_if_available(). On
> > the other hand I can't immediately see a problem with that, besides
> > differing messages on windows/the rest of the world.
> I'm slightly worried about breaking 3rd-party code that might be using
> recv() and somehow expecting the current behavior. However, it's equally
> arguable that such code would have Windows-specific problems that would be
> fixed by the patch. Now that we've seen a successful round of buildfarm
> results, I'd be okay with back-patching 90e61df8 personally.
> Any other opinions out there?
Maybe holdoff until the release with the new code has been out for a while,
but make sure we get it into the next set of minors? That'll give us at
least some real world deployment to notice any issues with it?