On 12/7/21 13:22, Tom Lane wrote: > Alexander Lakhin <exclus...@gmail.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
