Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2023-12-08 17:29:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Agreed. I think we want to do that after the initial handshake,
>> too, so maybe as attached.
> I was wondering about that too. But if we do so, why not also do it for
> writes?
Writes don't act that way, do they? EOF on a pipe gives you an error,
not silently reporting that zero bytes were written and leaving you
to retry indefinitely.
What I was wondering about was if we needed similar changes on the
libpq side, but it's still about reads not writes.
regards, tom lane
