Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory?

Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>

From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>

To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>

Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>, peter@eisentraut.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com>

Date: 2025-08-11T06:58:41Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 17:50, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> I think any of the other options would be
> better. There's no guarantee that more data will ever arrive, the
> connection might be used just to wait for the notification.

Yeah, I think that's the important thing to realize here. The "try
again later" only makes sense if we need more data to try again. If we
don't then we now start waiting on data that might never come.

Commits

Revert unnecessary check for NULL
- 5a26a3e4eeb2 18.0 landed
- 807ee417e562 19 (unreleased) landed
libpq: Be strict about cancel key lengths
- e7ff96853ea7 18.0 landed
- e411a8d25a4b 19 (unreleased) landed
libpq: Handle OOM by disconnecting instead of hanging or skipping msgs
- 8aa287c9061b 18.0 landed
- f6f0542266f0 19 (unreleased) landed
libpq: Complain about missing BackendKeyData later with PGgetCancel()
- 42b1480eb2c6 18.0 landed
- a4801eb691ed 19 (unreleased) landed