It is generally required, actually. What else will clean it up? It's safer with a mutex because then there's no race. But if you know for other reasons the scope of access is limited it can be safe. Usually this is done with either a transaction based Continuation destroyed in TXN_CLOSE, or a one shot that gets an events, performs an action, then destroys itself.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 7:38 PM Walt Karas <wka...@oath.com.invalid> wrote: > Is it safe to call TSContDestroy() from within the continuation's > function? Does it matter whether or not the continuation has a mutex? > -- *Beware the fisherman who's casting out his line in to a dried up riverbed.* *Oh don't try to tell him 'cause he won't believe. Throw some bread to the ducks instead.* *It's easier that way. *- Genesis : Duke : VI 25-28
