Re: Idle processes chewing up CPU?

Hi Tom,

Bit of a catch 22 - since it happens rarely, there's no definitive
confirmation that it's fixed the problem.

Also, not sure if I'm comfortable applying the change and recompiling
myself, wouldn't have a clue where to start.

I can't see how the change would hurt though, seems like a good idea
regardless, what do you think?

Regards,
-Brendan

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Sunday, 27 September 2009 2:42 PM
To: Brendan Hill
Cc: 'Craig Ringer'; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Idle processes chewing up CPU?

"Brendan Hill" <brendanh(at)jims(dot)net> writes:
> Makes sense to me. Seems to be happening rarely now.

> I'm not all that familiar with the open source process, is this likely to
be
> included in the next release version?

Can you confirm that that change actually fixes the problem you're
seeing? I'm happy to apply it if it does, but I'd like to know that
the problem is dealt with.

regards, tom lane

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Monday, 21 September 2009 5:25 AM
> To: Brendan Hill
> Cc: 'Craig Ringer'; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Idle processes chewing up CPU?

> "Brendan Hill" <brendanh(at)jims(dot)net> writes:
>> My best interpretation is that an SSL client dirty disconnected while
>> running a request. This caused an infinite loop in pq_recvbuf(), calling
>> secure_read(), triggering my_sock_read() over and over. Calling
>> SSL_get_error() in secure_read() returns 10045 (either connection reset,
> or
>> WSAEOPNOTSUPP, I'm not sure) - after this, pq_recvbuf() appears to think
>> errno=EINTR has occurred, so it immediately tries again.

> I wonder if this would be a good idea:

> #ifdef USE_SSL
> if (port->ssl)
> {
> int err;

> rloop:
> + errno = 0;
> n = SSL_read(port->ssl, ptr, len);
> err = SSL_get_error(port->ssl, n);
> switch (err)
> {
> case SSL_ERROR_NONE:
> port->count += n;
> break;

> It looks to me like the basic issue is that pq_recvbuf is expecting
> a relevant value of errno when secure_read returns -1, and there's
> some path in the Windows case where errno doesn't get set, and if
> it just happens to have been EINTR then we've got a loop.

> regards, tom lane

> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general