[pull] master from postgres:master #954
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![pull[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/12910?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Traditionally, libpq's pqPutMsgEnd has rounded down the amount-to-send to be a multiple of 8K when it is eagerly writing some data. This still seems like a good idea when sending through a Unix socket, as pipes typically have a buffer size of 8K or some fraction/multiple of that. But there's not much argument for it on a TCP connection, since (a) standard MTU values are not commensurate with that, and (b) the kernel typically applies its own packet splitting/merging logic. Worse, our SSL and GSSAPI code paths both have API stipulations that if they fail to send all the data that was offered in the previous write attempt, we mustn't offer less data in the next attempt; else we may get "SSL error: bad length" or "GSSAPI caller failed to retransmit all data needing to be retried". The previous write attempt might've been pqFlush attempting to send everything in the buffer, so pqPutMsgEnd can't safely write less than the full buffer contents. (Well, we could add some more state to track exactly how much the previous write attempt was, but there's little value evident in such extra complication.) Hence, apply the round-down only on AF_UNIX sockets, where we never use SSL or GSSAPI. Interestingly, we had a very closely related bug report before, which I attempted to fix in commit d053a87. But the test case we had then seemingly didn't trigger this pqFlush-then-pqPutMsgEnd scenario, or at least we failed to recognize this variant of the bug. Bug: #18907 Reported-by: Dorjpalam Batbaatar <[email protected]> Author: Tom Lane <[email protected]> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/[email protected] Backpatch-through: 13
CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE was still being recommended by psql's tab completion as a possible pattern, but the backend is rejecting this option since e2bab2d. Reported-by: Shinya Kato <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Shinya Kato <[email protected]> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOzEurQZ1a+6d1K8b=+Ww1NFQVwAt9KSCQsBWXYBaPnYCenK3g@mail.gmail.com
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See Commits and Changes for more details.
Created by
pull[bot] (v2.0.0-alpha.1)
Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )