Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On April 9, 2018 6:31:07 PM PDT, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >Would it work to use this second pipe, to which each child writes a
> >byte that postmaster never reads, and then rely on SIGPIPE when
> >postmaster dies? Then we never need to do a syscall.
>
> I'm not following, could you expand on what you're suggesting? Note
> that you do not get SIGPIPE for already buffered writes. Which
> syscall can we avoid?
Ah. I was thinking we'd get SIGPIPE from the byte sent at the start, as
soon as the kernel saw that postmaster abandoned the fd by dying.
Scratch that then.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
