Author asksol
Recipients asksol, gdb, jnoller
Date 2010-07-21.09:26:14
SpamBayes Score 0.154298
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1279704376.7.0.165661291099.issue9205@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
>At first glance, looks like there are a number of sites where you don't >change the blocking calls to non-blocking calls (e.g. get()).  Almost >all of the get()s have the potential to be called when there is no >possibility for them to terminate.
>
>I might recommend referring to my original termination.patch... I >believe I tracked down the majority of such blocking calls.

I thought the EOF errors would take care of that, at least this has
been running in production on many platforms without that happening.

>In the interest of simplicity though, I'm beginning to think that the >right answer might be to just do something like termination.patch but >to conditionalize crashing the pool on a pool configuration option.  >That way the behavior would no worse for your use case.  Does that >sound reasonable?

How would you shut down the pool then? And why is that simpler?
History
Date User Action Args
2010-07-21 09:26:17asksolsetrecipients: + asksol, jnoller, gdb
2010-07-21 09:26:16asksolsetmessageid: <1279704376.7.0.165661291099.issue9205@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-07-21 09:26:14asksollinkissue9205 messages
2010-07-21 09:26:14asksolcreate