On April 9, 2018 6:31:07 PM PDT, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> Another approach, that's simpler to implement, is to simply have a
>> second selfpipe, just for WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH.
>
>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?
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
