On 2016-01-02 18:40:38 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> What I wanted to say is that the handling of socket closure is not
> same in WaitLatchOrSocket() and pgwin32_waitforsinglesocket()
> due to which this problem can arise and it seems that is the
> right line of direction to pursue. I have found that
> in WaitLatchOrSocket(),
> even when the socket is closed, we remember the result as
> WL_SOCKET_READABLE and again tries to wait whereas the
> same is handled properly in pgwin32_waitforsinglesocket().
That's actually intentional, and part of the design:* When waiting on a socket, EOF and error conditions are reported
by*returning the socket as readable/writable or both, depending on* WL_SOCKET_READABLE/WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE being
specified.
The way this is supposed to work, and does on unixoid systems, is that
WaitLatchOS returns, the recv is retried and signals an error.
> If we
> remember the closed socket event and then take appropriate action,
> then this problem won't happen. Attached patch which by no-means
> a complete fix shows what I wanted to say and after this the problem
> mentioned by Shay doesn't happen, although I get LOG message
> which is due to the reason that proper handling for socket closure
> needs to be done in this path. This patch is based on the code
> after commit 387da18874afa17156ee3af63766f17efb53c4b9. I
> will do testing and refine the fix based on HEAD later as I am done
> for the today.
It's weird that this fixes the problem. As we were previously, according
to Shay, not busy looping, this seems to indicate that FD_CLOSE is only
reported once or somesuch?
It'd be very interesting to add a debug elog() into the if (resEvents.lNetworkEvents & FD_CLOSE) {
if (wakeEvents & WL_SOCKET_READABLE) result |= WL_SOCKET_READABLE; if (wakeEvents &
WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE) result |= WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE; }
path in WaitLatchOrSocket. If it actually returns with the current code,
we have a better idea where to look for problems.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
