On 10 Jun 2008, at 10:07, Ken Murchison wrote:
Any suggestions?  I'm off thinking about other things at the moment.

The comment associated with the change is:

        make sure we send all available data, not just one buffer full.
this solves a pipelining problem where a response to a command run on a proxy could be output in the middle of a response to a command run on a backend

Both versions call prot_select() once. The old code The new code (attempts) to copy input to output until end of input, but since it's only called prot_select() once, that's a problem. There are a couple of possibilities, perhaps you're more familiar with prot and it's byzantine usage, but here's my analysis:

1) Instead of looping on the size of the read, we loop until prot_read() returns == 0 or < 0. This assumes that pin isn't set to allow blocking. I don't like this solution, since I'm not terribly interested in an exhaustive analysis of every possible pin that proxy_check_input() might get. Maybe you know something I don't, tho.

2) Introduce prot_select() into the read/write loop. This will allow you to know that there's still input available really without blocking. Of course, if it's a very large block of data, you might not see the next block, return control to the calling function, and get the same pipelining problem mentioned in the CVS log above. Assuming you're not worried about that scenario, it's a good solution because it introduces the idea that output from the backend server is handled prior to input from the client.

3) Continuing on the precedence idea above, split the loop handling so that backend output is always handled first. Also, always return control to the caller if you ever have backend output. This way, you'll only ever take input from the client if the backend isn't sending anything. I doubt this solves the race mentioned in (2), either tho.

4) Restructure the routines calling proxy_check_input to know the structure of the commands being sent and the corresponding responses. This is the surest way to fix the above problem, i.e., don't let the proxy server respond to a command until the response to the command sent by the backend is done. Of course, tho is a huge pain, probably involving a ton of additional code.

:wes

Reply via email to