Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n5BRC-00077I-EZ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2022 18:55:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n5BRB-0002Lm-BO for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2022 18:55:05 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n5BRB-0002Lc-2Q for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2022 18:55:05 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n5BR9-0003ZP-1A for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2022 18:55:04 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 205Isn3A794238; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 13:54:49 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Jelte Fennema , Fujii Masao , Zhihong Yu , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: PQcancel does not use tcp_user_timeout, connect_timeout and keepalive settings In-reply-to: <20220105184225.5xfekapzg5o3uq7a@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <1473763.1636578406@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20220105184225.5xfekapzg5o3uq7a@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Wed, 05 Jan 2022 10:42:25 -0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <794236.1641408889.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2022 13:54:49 -0500 Message-ID: <794237.1641408889@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > On 2021-12-28 15:49:00 +0000, Jelte Fennema wrote: >> Finally, I would love it if once these fixes are merged the would also = be backpatched to = >> previous versions of libpq. > I'm not really convinced this is a good patch to backpatch. There does s= eem to > be some potential for subtle breakage - code in signal handlers is notor= iously > finnicky, it's a rarely exercised code path, etc. It's also not fixing > something that previously worked. IMO, this is a new feature not a bug fix, and as such it's not backpatch material ... especially if we don't have 100.00% confidence in it. regards, tom lane