On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> ...and so I've committed it and back-patched to 9.4.
>
> Sigh. This was buggy; I have no idea how it survived my earlier testing.
>
> I will go fix it. Sorry.
Gah! That, too, turned out to be buggy, although in a
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> The shm_mq code handles blocking mode and non-blocking mode
> asymmetrically in a couple of places, with the unfortunate result that
> if you are using non-blocking mode, and your counterparty dies before
> attaching the
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The shm_mq code handles blocking mode and non-blocking mode
>> asymmetrically in a couple of places, with the unfortunate result that
>> if
The shm_mq code handles blocking mode and non-blocking mode
asymmetrically in a couple of places, with the unfortunate result that
if you are using non-blocking mode, and your counterparty dies before
attaching the queue, operations on the queue continue to return
SHM_MQ_WOULD_BLOCK instead of, as