On 6/2/09, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jeremy Kerr <j...@ozlabs.org> writes: > > The following patch changes psecure_write to be more like psecure_read - > > it only alters the signal mask if the connection is over SSL. It's only > > an RFC, as I'm not entirely sure about the reasoning behind blocking > > SIGPIPE for the non-SSL case - there may be other considerations here. > > > 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. > > 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.
Slightly OT, but why are we not using MSG_NOSIGNAL / SO_NOSIGPIPE on OS'es that support them? I guess significant portion of userbase has at least one of them available... Thus avoiding 2 syscalls per operation plus potential locking issues. -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
