Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=Flowed
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 11:13:40 -0600
Message-Id: <CYCWA43RK8AH.11BZB0P45NOD5@neon.tech>
From: "Tristan Partin" <tristan@neon.tech>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "Shlok Kyal" <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: psql not responding to SIGINT upon db reconnection
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
References: <CUAJJDVD8L61.2AH6VEEDMTXX3@gonk>
 <CUAKHCX5472I.SJP0AWQRYVFA@gonk> <CUAKIOVISECO.2S7MSQFOP1304@gonk>
 <1588058.1690220636@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CUAO24Z1Y72E.2069AD01EB4LO@gonk>
 <CANhcyEVBQWoPJK+C_h1CKyN3Wr2VKHuPx=bSB4PH2LuGdut4qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CWRWDTTPP0WZ.2W75ZAVL5ND1M@neon.tech>
 <5e28b89f-0033-4e42-8184-b71b731c1aa2@iki.fi>
 <CX5IOLTR8MAD.1UUDEG0X673Z4@neon.tech>
 <9b3693b7-0bc3-430a-b43f-eae44e8a39b6@iki.fi>
 <CX5NSE8R07D8.9D8M8LBKP119@neon.tech>
 <032868e0-a530-4fc7-972c-af6f08950b7e@iki.fi>
 <CXBHH2O58HVA.JUP07AES8JVK@neon.tech> <CXGM82ZEGMR2.8EX2V7UBFIK3@neon.tech>
 <CA+TgmoYK1JCJUyrK==TBj7St1hhke5AOwXyrmDAs-pA_mmAwVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY93J05RFBUI.3VGP5PLTG4EWI@neon.tech>
 <CA+TgmoZb1Ojhw9numxWp8nCioh_wULxOcYCQ6Jwku4t_e43PkA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoZb1Ojhw9numxWp8nCioh_wULxOcYCQ6Jwku4t_e43PkA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CYCWA43RK8AH.11BZB0P45NOD5%40neon.tech>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri Jan 12, 2024 at 10:45 AM CST, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 1:03=E2=80=AFAM Tristan Partin <tristan@neon.tech>=
 wrote:
> > I think the way to go is to expose some variation of libpq's
> > pqSocketPoll(), which I would be happy to put together a patch for.
> > Making frontends, psql in this case, have to reimplement the polling
> > logic doesn't strike me as fruitful, which is essentially what I have
> > done.
>
> I encourage further exploration of this line of attack. I fear that if
> I were to commit something like what you've posted up until now,
> people would complain that that code was too ugly to live, and I'd
> have a hard time telling them that they're wrong.

Completely agree. Let me look into this. Perhaps I can get something up=20
next week or the week after.

--=20
Tristan Partin
Neon (https://neon.tech)