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