On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < >> horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> After a process termination without PQfinish() of a client, >>> server emits the following log message not seen on Linux boxes. >>> LOG: could not receive data from client: An existing connection was >>> forcibly closed by the remote host. >>> >>> This patch translates WSAECONNRESET of WSARecv to an EOF so that >>> pgwin32_recv behaves the same way with Linux. > >> Marked the patch as "ready for committer". > > Windows is not my platform, but ... is this actually an improvement? > I'm fairly concerned that this change would mask real errors that ought > to get logged. I don't know that that's an okay price to pay for > suppressing a log message when clients violate the protocol. > > According to > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms740668(v=vs.85).aspx > WSAECONNRESET means: > > An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. This > normally results if the peer application on the remote host is > suddenly stopped, the host is rebooted, the host or remote network > interface is disabled, or the remote host uses a hard close (see > setsockopt for more information on the SO_LINGER option on the remote > socket). This error may also result if a connection was broken due to > keep-alive activity detecting a failure while one or more operations > are in progress. Operations that were in progress fail with > WSAENETRESET. Subsequent operations fail with WSAECONNRESET. > > (The description of WSAENETRESET, on the same page, indicates that the > last two sentences apply only to the keep-alive failure case.) > > So this change would deal nicely with the "peer application on the remote > host is suddenly stopped" case, at the price of being not nice about any > of the other cases. Not convinced it's a good tradeoff.
Yes, in the list of failure cases that could trigger this error, the one that looks like a problem is to me is when a network interface is disabled. It may be a good idea to let users know via the logs that something was connected. Could we for example log a WARNING message, and not report an error? -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers