| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Lars Kanis <lars(at)greiz-reinsdorf(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: MSVC SSL test failure |
| Date: | 2021-12-07 19:26:55 |
| Message-ID: | 4cababf8-fcb4-e9a8-3dbd-f64d25a98962@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/7/21 13:22, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 07.12.2021 19:25, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Hmm. I wonder whether using SD_BOTH behaves any differently.
>> With shutdown(MyProcPort->sock, SD_BOTH) the test failed for me on
>> iterations 1, 2, 3, 16 (just as without shutdown() at all).
>> So shutdown with the SD_SEND flag definitely behaves much better (I've
>> seen over 200 successful iterations).
> Fun. Well, I'll put in shutdown with SD_SEND for the moment,
> and we'll have to see whether we can improve further than that.
> It does sound like we may be running into OpenSSL bugs/oddities,
> not only kernel issues, so it may be impossible to do better
> on our side.
Yeah. My suspicion is that SD_BOTH is what closesocket() does if
shutdown() hasn't been previously called.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-07 20:24:46 | Re: Dubious usage of TYPCATEGORY_STRING |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-12-07 19:19:36 | Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions |