Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I guess you misunderstood what I said. What I meant was that we cannot
>> longjmp *out to the outer level*, ie we cannot take control away from
>> the input stack. We could however have a TRY block inside the interrupt
>> handler that catches and handles (queues) any errors occurring during
>> transaction abort. As long as we eventually return control to openssl
>> I think it should work.
> Is there any real advantage to that?
Not crashing when something funny happens seems like a real advantage to
me. (And an unexpected elog(FATAL) will look like a crash to most
users, even if you want to try to define it as not a crash.)
> How often do we hit an error
> trying to abort a transaction? And how will we report the error
> anyway?
Queue it up and report it at the next opportunity, as per upthread.
> I thought the next thing we'd report would be the recovery
> conflict, not any bizarre can't-abort-the-transaction scenario.
Well, if we discard it because we're too lazy to implement error message
merging, that's OK. Presumably it'll still get into the postmaster log.
>> (Hm, but I wonder whether there are any hard
>> timing constraints in the ssl protocol ... although hopefully xact abort
>> won't ever take long enough that that's a real problem.)
> That would be incredibly broken.
Think "authentication timeout". I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the
remote end would drop the connection if certain events didn't come back
reasonably promptly. There might even be security reasons for that,
ie, somebody could brute-force a key if you give them long enough.
(But this is all speculation; I don't actually know SSL innards.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
