On April 9, 2018 6:57:23 PM PDT, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: >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.
Had the same idea, but unfortunately reality, in the form of a test program, cured me of my hope ;) -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
