Tom, > The consideration is that the application fails completely on server > disconnect (because it gets SIGPIPE'd). This was long ago deemed > unacceptable, and we aren't likely to change our opinion on that.
OK, understood. I'm guessing MSG_NOSIGNAL on the send() isn't portable enough here? > What disturbs me about your report is the suggestion that there are > paths through that code that fail to protect against SIGPIPE. If so, > we need to fix that. I just missed the comment that pqsecure_read may end up writing to the socket in the SSL case, so looks like all is fine here. We shouldn't see a SIGPIPE from the recv() alone. Cheers, Jeremy -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
