Christopher Baines <m...@cbaines.net> writes: > You're sort of right, but you've got the downsides the wrong way around. > > The key bit with the kill call is the SIGHUP but, not that it's not > SIGKILL. The current situation won't kill the NGinx process, but instead > just get it to reload the certificate (at least that's the intention). > > The restart action would "kill" the process, in that it would send it > SIGTERM and the the shepherd would start a new NGinx process, and this > has the potential of interrupting whatever is using NGinx. > > Does that make sense?
Hmm, great answer! Makes sense, and the SIGHUP signal really is indeed better for this case. Thanks for the informational response!
