Hello, thanks for revewing and the discussion. At Sat, 10 Sep 2016 10:44:50 -0400, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in <17326.1473518...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> 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?
This "error" won't be raised when any side of NIC stopped. This error is returned when the connection was "resetted", that is, RST packet is sent and received from the peer. "connection reset" is regarded as just a EOF at least for read() on Linux, I don't think there's no problem to conceal the ECONNRESET on Windows if we are satisfied with the behavior of Linux's read(). Users won't know of the closed connections if a client doesn't show a message for an EOF on Linux. Users will know of them on Windows if a program shows a message for an EOF without a message for ECONNRESET. In another aspect is the policy of behavior unification. If we take a policy to try to imitate the behavior of some reference platform (specifically Linux) on other platforms, this is required disguising. Another potential policy on this problem is "following the platform's behavior". From this viewpoint, this message should be shown to users because Windows says so. Especially for socket operations, the simultion layer is intending the former for non-error behaviors, but I'm not sure about the behaviors on errors. > It isn't an "error". These conditions get logged at COMMERROR which is > effectively LOG_SERVER_ONLY. If RST is not expected at the time and distinguishing it from FIN is significant to users, it would be an "error". regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers