WSGI issue...

Martin Pool mbp at canonical.com
Tue Mar 9 22:06:59 GMT 2010


On 10 March 2010 01:19, John Szakmeister <john at szakmeister.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:16 PM, John Szakmeister <john at szakmeister.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:42 PM, John Szakmeister <john at szakmeister.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> What looks like is happening is that the smart server fails s a
>>> result, and it's falling back to just plain HTTP... which is horribly
>>> slow, even on a LAN.  Any ideas?
>>
>> Looks like I may have been wrong on this part... it's still using the
>> smart server, but dumping that ugly traceback to the logs. :-(
>
> Here's the relevant data from the mod_wsgi documentation:
>    In the interests of promoting portability of WSGI applications,
> mod_wsgi restricts use of signal.signal() and will ensure that any
> attempts to register signal handlers are ignored. A warning notice
> will be output to the Apache error log indicating that this action has
> been taken.
>
>    If for some reason there is a need for a WSGI application to
> register some special signal handler this behaviour can be turned off,
> however an application should avoid the signals SIGTERM, SIGINT,
> SIGHUP, SIGWINCH and SIGUSR1 as these are all used by Apache.
>
>
> So it seems that we should avoid adding a handler for SIGWINCH when
> bzr is launched as a WSGI application... but I'm not sure how you make
> that distinction from osutils.  It seems like the Bazaar text client
> should register this, rather than having osutils do it outright.

https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~statik/bzr/bzr-less-signal/+merge/19316
from Elliot moved this into the TextUIFactory, so bzr.dev tip should
be ok already. (Contradictions welcome; please reopen that bug.)

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>



More information about the bazaar mailing list