On April 9, 2018 6:31:07 PM PDT, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@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.
