On 14 Jun 2001, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > > > > I'm pretty sure that Ryan disagrees with the path I took for SIGHUP,
> > > > > which is to kill everybody we can with the pod (since that is the most
> > > > > clean and reliable mechanism we have) and let
> > > > > ap_reclaim_child_processes() handle the stragglers.
> > > >
> > > > You can't use the pod to gracelessly shutdown the child processes. It
> > > > doesn't do that. The pod will only work for graceful shutdowns.
> > >
> > > that's sort of what I said... we start off like graceful (everybody
> > > that dies from the pod dies cleanly) and then
> > > ap_reclaim_child_processes() knocks everybody else out with SIGTERM
> >
> > If we are going to end up sending the SIGTERM, then why bother with the
> > pod at all?
>
> well, that is what it comes down too
>
> hopefully you'll find the current prefork in CVS acceptable, or at
> least moving in the right direction
Actually, from what I saw of it when I did my initial review, ++1. This
looks like what I detail in my message earlier. Which, I sent just before
the commit message came through, so it looks like they crossed enroute.
:-)
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
