Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Socket problem using beta2 on Windows-XP

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Thomas Hallgren" <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Socket problem using beta2 on Windows-XP
Date: 2005-09-29 20:03:39
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E6E0@algol.sollentuna.se (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hmm. Bummer.

Anyway. The netstat indicates that the pipe() call works. The order is
pretty much:

parent: create socket pair, connected to each other. 
parent: Duplicate socket [this is what fails]
parent: close own copy of socket
child: recreate socket from structure [this is never called, thus the
new socket is never "attached" to a process]

Now *why* it's doing this, I hav eno idea.

Questions:
1) Does it actually work? ;-) And just logs the error anyway?
2) Does this happen on *every* connection?
3) Can you reproduce this on a different machine, or just one?

//Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Hallgren [mailto:thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:48 AM
> To: Magnus Hagander
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Socket problem using beta2 on Windows-XP
> 
> Nope, no anti-virus and no firewall (other then the box that 
> fronts my home-network to the outside world).
> 
> - thomas
> 
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 
> >>Hi,
> >>I've installed PostgreSQL 8.1-beta2 as a service on my 
> Windows-XP box.
> >>It runs fine but I get repeated messages like this in the log:
> >>
> >>   2005-09-29 00:41:09 FATAL:  could not duplicate socket 
> 1880 for use 
> >>in backend: error code 10038
> >>
> >>and for each message printed, a new postgres process is created. To 
> >>make things worse, those processes do not die when I stop 
> the service.
> >>
> >>I use sysinternals tcpview to monitor my sockets. I know 
> that no other 
> >>process is using 1880. Each started postgres process will 
> occupy two, 
> >>seemingly random ports that apparently form a loop somehow. 
> This is a 
> >>typical entry:
> >>
> >>   <non-existent>:3136	TCP	127.0.0.1:1554	
> >>127.0.0.1:1555 ESTABLISHED	
> >>   <non-existent>:3136	TCP	127.0.0.1:1555	
> >>127.0.0.1:1554	ESTABLISHED	
> >>
> >>The weird thing is that there is no process with pid 3136 
> (hence the 
> >>name <non-existent>). There is a postgres process with 
> another pid in 
> >>my process listing. If I kill that, the <non-existstent> entries go 
> >>away.
> >>
> >>Looks like pid 3136 is talking to itself. A pipe() followed 
> by failure 
> >>to start the new process perhaps?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >Do you by any chance run any antivirus or firewall software? 
> If so, can 
> >you try removing it (note! actual uninstall, not just disabling it!)
> >
> >//Magnus
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Daniel DuvallDate: 2005-09-29 20:16:49
Subject: Re: postgresql clustering
Previous:From: Dann CorbitDate: 2005-09-29 18:32:12
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group