On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 12:46:02PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote: > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23238 ... > Shouldn't apr_pool_clear set to ignore SIGTERMs and restore the handler at > the end of its run? I suppose this will lose the signal if it's coming in > the middle of clear run. So may be a handler that will remember that the > signal was sent and then re-throw it once clear is done? > > But it's more than that. What if apr_pool_clear hasn't even started yet > when SIGTERM has arrived? In this case we deterministically lose all > cleanup functionality.
Yes - really, it's wrong to try and solve this in APR... the caller should assume that no interfaces in APR are async-signal-safe since none are documented to be so. The only way of getting well-defined behaviour outside APR would be to implement a "grafeful shutdown" in httpd as Colm has proposed. Regards, joe
