From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Strange behavior of PostgreSQL on Linux |
Date: | 2000-12-10 18:18:17 |
Message-ID: | 28718.976472297@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com> writes:
> Looks like it tries to read on socket which is already closed from other
> side. And it seems like recv did not return in this case. Is this OK, or
> kernel bug?
Sounds like a kernel bug --- recv() should *always* return immediately
if the socket is known closed. I'd think the kernel didn't believe the
socket was closed, if not for your lsof evidence. That's certainly
pointing a finger at the kernel...
We've heard (undetailed) reports before of backends hanging around when
the client was long gone. I always assumed that the client machine had
failed to disconnect properly, but now I wonder. A kernel bug might
explain those reports.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-12-10 18:41:21 | Re: v7.1 beta 1 ...packaged, finally ... |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-12-10 18:10:29 | Re: F_SETLK is looking worse and worse... |