From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation |
Date: | 2010-12-16 20:41:10 |
Message-ID: | 11807.1292532070@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-16 20:43:21 | Re: Extensions, patch v18 (merge against master, bitrot-only-fixes) |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-12-16 20:33:27 | Re: Extensions, patch v18 (merge against master, bitrot-only-fixes) |