Benoit Chesneau

no activity since awhile. closing feel free to create a new ticket if needed.

We already do this : https://github.com/benoitc/gunicorn/blob/master/gunicorn/workers/sync.py#L199 same in async worker. Which worker are you using it? I would not put it there anyway as we don't always want it. Only...

yes because in theory you don't want to shutdown yourself the socket since we read it until the end... We used to do that (~2010) but for some reason it...

@jamadden the snippet on SSL is normal the socket is already close there, you only want to destroy the fd (at least in theory;) More generally speaking I Would prefer...

ok I found the place this shutdown has been removed (long time ago) : https://github.com/benoitc/gunicorn/commit/615c6a692703d3f6376bcffca2c0cff147196a0c#diff-0b90f794c3e9742c45bf484505e3db8d The commit log doesn't reflect the whole change unfortunately. But now if I remember it...

> Anyways, I will investigate a bit more to see if there's a better place to call shutdown(), but it's not clear to me in which situations we would not...

> Never mind. I think we already do. I see a cleanup, potentially, but I'll investigate that after the merge. care to elaborate? In it's current state I wouldn't approve...

no activity since awhile. closing feel free to create a new ticket if needed.

fair enough. More than the performance, I was thinking that the memory usage, since you are passing the messages twice. But indeed that's a premature optimisation :)

yes this is definitly what I had to do though most of current distribution don't have ruby 1.9.1