On 17/03/17 17:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Petr Jelinek <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> Now the documentation for WSAEventSelect says "The FD_WRITE network
>> event is handled slightly differently. An FD_WRITE network event is
>> recorded when a socket is first connected with a call to the connect,
>> ConnectEx, WSAConnect, WSAConnectByList, or WSAConnectByName function or
>> when a socket is accepted with accept, AcceptEx, or WSAAccept function
>> and then after a send fails with WSAEWOULDBLOCK and buffer space becomes
>> available. Therefore, an application can assume that sends are possible
>> starting from the first FD_WRITE network event setting and lasting until
>> a send returns WSAEWOULDBLOCK. After such a failure the application will
>> find out that sends are again possible when an FD_WRITE network event is
>> recorded and the associated event object is set."
>> But while PQconnectPoll does connect() before setting connection status
>> eventually happens, it does not do any writes in the code block that
>> switches to  CONNECTION_MADE and PGRES_POLLING_WRITING. That means
>> FD_WRITE event is never recorded as per quoted documentation.
> Ah-hah!  Great detective work.
>> Then what remains is why it works in libpq. If you look at
>> pgwin32_select which is eventually called by libpq code, it actually
>> handles the situation by trying empty WSASend on any socket that is
>> supposed to wait for FD_WRITE and only calling the
>> WaitForMultipleObjectsEx when WSASend failed with WSAEWOULDBLOCK, when
>> the WSASend succeeds it immediately returns ok.
>> So I did something similar in attached for WaitEventSetWaitBlock() and
>> it indeed solves the issue my windows test machine. Now the
>> coding/placement probably isn't the best (and there are no comments),
>> but maybe somebody will find proper place for this now that we know the
>> cause.
> Yeah, I'm afraid we had better do something more or less like this.
> It's interesting to speculate about whether WaitEventSet could keep
> additional state that would avoid the need for a dummy send() every
> time, but that seems like material for new development not a bug fix.
> In any case, a quick review of the code suggests that there are no
> performance-critical places where we wait for WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE
> unless we've already detected that we have to wait for the network;
> so the dummy send() isn't going to do anything except consume a
> few more CPU cycles before we get to the point of blocking.  It may
> not be worth worrying about.

Thanks, now that I look at it again I think we might need to do cycle
with the occurred_events and returned_events and not return on first
find since theoretically there can be multiple sockets if this gets
called directly and not via WaitLatchOrSocket(). I don't have mental
power to finish it up right now though, sorry for that.

> I'll add some comments and push this.  Does everyone agree that
> this had better get back-patched, too?


  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to