Peter T Mount <peter@retep.org.uk> writes:
>> The recv() complaints probably indicate that the client application
>> disconnected ungracefully (ie, without sending the 'X' terminate
>> message). It's curious that they're not both alike.
> Hmmm, I've never seen the recv() problem before with any JDBC app, only
> this one.
That particular message is new in the 6.5 code (BTW, as of this morning
it should say "pq_recvbuf: unexpected EOF on client connection").
I was about to say that prior versions would also complain about an
unexpected client disconnect, but actually it looks like 6.4.2 doesn't
--- at least not in this low-level code. I'm not inclined to remove the
message however. I think we want it there to help detect more serious
problems, like disconnect in the middle of a COPY operation.
> PS: Currently the JDBC driver is still using the 6.3.x protocol. When 6.4
> came out I didn't implement the CANCEL stuff, as I was concentrating on
> getting more of the innards implemented.
> Anyhow, if the terminate message is a problem, I'll upgrade the protocol.
The terminate message is defined in the old protocol too; it's not new
for 6.4. As for whether it's a "problem" not to send it, it's only
a problem if you don't like complaints in the postmaster log ;-).
The backend will close up shop just fine without it.
regards, tom lane