Skip to content

* double fastcgi_end_request on max_children limit #710

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

* double fastcgi_end_request on max_children limit #710

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dmitry-saprykin
Copy link
Contributor

Php sends 2 fastcgi FCGI_END_REQUEST records instead of one when fastcgi_finish_request(); called and fpm param max_requests exceeded.

  • one is sent on fastcgi_finish_request(); call
  • other is sent in block
    fpm_main.c:1951 requests++; if (max_requests && (requests == max_requests)) { fcgi_finish_request(&request, 1); break; }

It confuses fastcgi client (i.e. nginx) receiving 2 FCGI_END_REQUEST records one after another.
So I have set request->closed flag to prevent second FastCGI record sending.

@smalyshev smalyshev added the Bug label Dec 1, 2014
@Berbe
Copy link
Contributor

Berbe commented Feb 26, 2015

  1. Long-lasting bug (already there in 5.3.x branch (even before?)
  2. 1-liner solution

Those facts should help pushing that modification into the main trunk...

@Berbe
Copy link
Contributor

Berbe commented Mar 5, 2015

It would be better to close this one and reopen #709 requesting a merge to the master branch, rather than to the now outdated 5.5.14 one

@laruence
Copy link
Member

laruence commented Mar 8, 2015

close as we don't accept PR against TAG version. please reopen #709 instead.

@laruence laruence closed this Mar 8, 2015
@Berbe
Copy link
Contributor

Berbe commented Mar 9, 2015

@laruence Could not you then reopen #709? Taking action to close is good, but not constructive without the counterpart.

@laruence
Copy link
Member

laruence commented Mar 9, 2015

@Berbe it truned out I can not reopen it.. because the origin branch seems deleted by the author.

@Berbe
Copy link
Contributor

Berbe commented Mar 11, 2015

The branch seemes to have changed name.
I opened #1169 to take over #709 and this pull request

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants