Excerpts from Olaf van der Spek's message of Tue Jan 03 02:18:20 -0800 2012: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Clint Byrum <[email protected]> wrote: > > Trying then to send SIGUSR1 is a bug for sure. There are two ways around > > it that I see. Either we must use a pipe to signal the parent that it > > can exit, or try having the parent actually send itself a SIGSTOP, and > > then use SIGCONT from the child. I think the former is more portable, > > and I have a branch here that does that, and no longer waits forever > > with --daemon --user on my Ubuntu precise (dev version) system. > > Why is all this magic needed anyway? > Can't we fork *after* we're sure everything is ready? >
I'm not sure I see it as magic, though I do acknowledge that its not as pretty as other things in Drizzle. However, to accomplish this without having to communicate between parent/child, we'd need to make sure that everything that plugins do before the fork can survive a fork. Threads are a particular concern. This seems a lot more complicated than what we have now, which is a single call which the child calls when its ok to let the parent exit. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
