Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeff Janes
Тема Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process
Дата
Msg-id CAMkU=1wCf9LeQXRge1ty9uDHEQRi2v9Mpe2Pox1xVdG6TZ2XcA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Ответы Re: killing pg_dump leaves backend process  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> The problem is that I don't know of any way to detect eof on a socket
> other than trying to read from it (or calling poll or select). So the
> server would have to periodically poll the client even when it's not
> expecting any data. The inefficiency is annoying enough and it still
> won't detect the eof immediately.

Do we know how inefficient it is, compared to the baseline work done
by CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() and its affiliated machinery?

...

>
> I'm surprised this is the first time we're hearing people complain
> about this. I know I've seen similar behaviour from Mysql and thought
> to myself that represented pretty poor behaviour and assumed Postgres
> did better.

I've seen other complaints about it (and made at least one myself)

Cheers,

Jeff



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Kodamasimham Pridhvi (MT2012066)"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Proposal for XML Schema Validation
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_dump and schema names