Hi Gordon Thank you for the helpful response
On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 11:18, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:56 PM Pete Fawcett <p...@fawcett.co.uk> wrote: > > *Questions:* > > > > Firstly, a simple work around is to check the link pointer when moving > > delivery pointers from 'pending' to completed and discarding them if the > > 'link' is NULL . Does this suffice? > > I think that would probably work. However it would be nicer to > actually remove them from pending before they were invalidated. Does > calling abort_pending() for the link before closing it in > > https://github.com/apache/qpid-cpp/blob/main/src/qpid/broker/amqp/Session.cpp#L764 > prevent the segfault? > I will try this. Thank you for pointing out where to remove the pending items, I hadn't managed to figure that out. > > Secondly, does the link need to be cleared just because a message is too > > big for the queue? Can it not be signalled back to the sender in a less > > drastic manner? (Dropping the link means it is likely for numerous > messages > > to be repeatedly delivered when using "at least once" delivery) > > The message could be rejected. (I think that would involve changing > the exception handling at > > https://github.com/apache/qpid-cpp/blob/main/src/qpid/broker/amqp/Session.cpp#L948 > to not throw but to simply reject the message). > > I will also look at this, though I think the message should be "returned" rather than "rejected" It only just occurred to me that the reason there are items still pending is probably due to flow control - I had been thinking it was a data race - so I'll need to keep that in mind when attempting to return a status to the sender. Thanks again Pete > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org > >
