Re: Followup comment for bug report 'postmaster ignores SIGPIPE' [was: Bug#255208: Would help with client aborts, too.]

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Allowing SIGPIPE to kill the backend is completely infeasible, as the
>> backend would be unable to release locks etc before dying.

> So the upshot is really not that ignoring SIGPIPE is specifically
> intended as the optimal solution but that writing a proper cleanup
> handler for SIGPIPE seems very difficult.

Well, if we did want to change this it would be far easier and safer to
do the other thing (ie, set QueryCancel upon noticing a write failure).

The question is whether doing either one is really a material
improvement, seeing that neither is going to provoke an abort
until/unless the backend actually tries to write something to the client.

            regards, tom lane