Andres Freund wrote:
> On April 9, 2018 6:31:07 PM PDT, Alvaro Herrera <> 
> 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      
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Reply via email to