On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 11:39 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: > No, I don't think that's going to work. Again, memory may vanish > before another cleanup runs.
Essentially, this reduces is to the problem of a sibling pool, for which the cleanup is hanging off the pool, but with lower memory use. Still no good. If we had post_cleanups, then this kind of stuff may work, as we could hang the cleanup of the malloc()-ed array to the post_cleanup phase, when all regular cleanups have already finished. Not sure it's worth the trouble though. -- Bojan
