Re: [PHP4BETA] PHP4 Betas

From: Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:07:24 +0000
Subject: Re: [PHP4BETA] PHP4 Betas
References: 1  Groups: php.version4 
Request: Send a blank email to php-version4+get-5799@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
At 12:27 AM 10/30/1999 -0400, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, David Shadoff wrote: > >> Did you folks know that PHP4 Beta2 leaves defunct Oracle shadow processes >> every time a page is accessed ? >> ( At least on PHP4 Beta2/Apache 1.3.9, Linux RH6.0, Oracle 8i EE v8.1.5_01 ) >> >> This is most likely due to either (a) incomplete cleanup during the >> Oracle-connection takedown, or (b) no SIGCHLD handler. >> >> Has this already been addresed in the current CVS ? > >Please try the current CVS. You can grab a snapshot from >http://bonsai.php.net/~sas/snapshots/ or follow the cvs >instructions at >http://www.php.net/version4 > >-Rasmus I'll take that as a "Probably fixed, but not 100% sure". I think I'll wait for the upcoming beta release - if I grab the CVS now, I'll probably start poking around in the code and fixing stuff. ;) (I *do* want to help; I just don't have much time at the moment). Please don't take this the wrong way, but I was expecting a "yes/no/not sure" kind of answer, or for verification via the supplied test script... (although if Oracle is an uncommon configuration, I understand). Strangely, I got a similar response on a bug I filed regarding the ora_connect() function (BugId #2537); and while I don't believe the maintainter ran the test script, the bug was closed nonetheless. I don't mind for the bug to have low priority, but is it normal behaviour here to *close* a bug under such circumstances ?

« previous php.version4 (#5799) next »