Thank you for your reply! > Right, it's been rejected several times before:
Sorry, I missed these emails. > I don't want to encourage lazy app development or Rack apps written with only unicorn in mind That's true. I'll use rack-timeout to solve my timeout problem. Thanks. On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Eric Wong <e...@80x24.org> wrote: > Fumiaki MATSUSHIMA <mtsm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> To output log / send error to error tracking service, >> we need to receive a signal other than SIGKILL first. >> --- >> Hi Unicorn team, >> >> I'm not sure this change is accetable though, >> I can find some articles and patches to prevent SIGKILL >> on timeout. > > Right, it's been rejected several times before: > > https://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/20140416084416.ga9...@dcvr.yhbt.net/t/#u > https://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/20180115015740.GA850@dcvr/t/#u > >> I think it's great if this feature is supported by unicorn itself. >> >> Could you give me your opinion? > > Again, I don't want to encourage lazy app development or Rack apps > written with only unicorn in mind. > > Existing `timeout' feature of unicorn is already something I hate > and don't want to encourage further reliance on: > > https://bogomips.org/unicorn/Application_Timeouts.html > > Fwiw, I (with ruby-core) will try to make Timeout in ruby stdlib > have less overhead for 2.6 (or 2.7) so it can benefit more users > than just unicorn. Ditto with various OobGC hacks over the years. > > Thanks.