Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:37:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 11:06:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Actually, the stats socket seems like a really good bet to me,
>>>> since all the backends will be interested in the same socket. The
>>>> client-to-backend sockets are only touched by two processes each,
>>>> so don't seem like big contention sources.
>>
>>> Do we take specific steps to ensure that we don't block when
>>> attempting to write to these sockets?
>>
>> Well, we have the socket set to O_NONBLOCK mode. Whether that avoids
>> the problem you're seeing ...
>
> A quick grep through the source code doesn't look too promising, so
> maybe that's not the proper way not to block on FBSD. Though Larry was
> telling me that there's recently been changes made in the socket code,
> so maybe this problem was fixed recently.
I didn't see a direct hit looking at the routines we talked about
yesterday, but
I can't be sure.
--
Larry Rosenman
Database Support Engineer
PERVASIVE SOFTWARE. INC.
12365B RIATA TRACE PKWY
3015
AUSTIN TX 78727-6531
Tel: 512.231.6173
Fax: 512.231.6597
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.pervasive.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
