At 05:21 PM 7/7/2005 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > I'd like to take a step back and try and understand better in which
> > cases we are failing. Although I know we added critical section code in
> > the hash, I think it's effectiveness is questionable, because I believe
> > there are many places today where we might have critical sections
> > besides the hash which we aren't protecting.
> > (And I agree with you that protecting them with real system calls sucks).
> > Can you describe what problems you are encountering?
>
>Well, my main one is in my own extension where I was relying on
>HANDLE_BLOCK_INTERRUPTIONS and it surprised me that this was a null
>macro under Apache2. There are a number of sections in the engine using
>that macro as well. If they aren't needed, we should remove them, but
>if they are needed, surely they are also needed under Apache2 or other
>sapis so it would be good to have a sapi-independent mechanism for
>deferring signals.
>
>The Apache2 flakyness I have seen has been weird dangling stuff on
>shutdown that I always just ignored.
I have a feeling we might as well nuke it and if we bump into a problem try
and find a more brute force solution, as resolving it at this granularity
will probably not work.
I'll look into it and will get back to you.
Andi