On 11/29/19 12:22 AM, nagaura.ryohei@fujitsu.com wrote:
>
>> From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:56:28AM +0000, nagaura.ryohei@fujitsu.com wrote:
>>> It seems that you did not think so at that time.
>>> # Please refer to [1]
>>>
>>> I don't think all the reviewers are completely negative.
>>
>> I recall having a negative impression on the patch when first looking at it, and still
>> have the same impression when looking at the last version. Just with a quick
>> look, assuming that you can bypass all cleanup operations normally taken by
>> pqDropConnection() through a hijacking of pqWait() is not fine as this routine
>> explicitely assumes to *never* have a timeout for its wait.
>
> I couldn't understand what you meant.
> Do you say that we shouldn't change pqWait() behavior?
> Or should I modify my patch to use pqDropConnection()?
This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2175.log
CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author.
More importantly it looks like there is still no consensus on this
patch, which is an uncommitted part of a previous patch [1].
Unless somebody chimes in I'll mark this Returned with Feedback at the
end of the CF.
Regards,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/raw/20190406065428.GA2145%40paquier.xyz