Message111025
| Author |
asksol |
| Recipients |
asksol, gdb, jnoller |
| Date |
2010年07月21日.09:26:14 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.15429784 |
| 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年07月21日 09:26:17 | asksol | set | recipients:
+ asksol, jnoller, gdb |
| 2010年07月21日 09:26:16 | asksol | set | messageid: <1279704376.7.0.165661291099.issue9205@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年07月21日 09:26:14 | asksol | link | issue9205 messages |
| 2010年07月21日 09:26:14 | asksol | create |
|