rndc halt -p behavior

[Rich Goodson]

And I'm expected to know this, how?  (incidentally, I added a 'wait'  
statement to my script after I discovered this behavior).  This  
behavior does not appear to be what the documentation describes, is  
all I'm trying to say.

And with that, I'm going to drop it before I start acting like a  
jackass (or more of one).

-rich

On Jan 21, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Alan Clegg wrote:

> Rich Goodson wrote:
>
>>> If -p is specified named's process id is returned. This allows an
>>> external process to determine when named had completed halting.
>>
>> Whether named is still answering queries or just cleaning up its
>> allocated memory, the PID is returned BEFORE named is gone, as  
>> named is
>> still running for a good while after the PID is returned (I've seen  
>> up
>> to 15 or 20 seconds or so).  So, if I use this in a script,  
>> assuming the
>> behavior that seems to be implied in the documentation, I'm going  
>> to be
>> starting a new instance of named once the PID is returned, so I'm  
>> going
>> to end up with 2 concurrent named processes.
>
> You are expected to 'wait' on the PID that was returned before you  
> start
> anything new.  rndc operates asynchronously to the BIND process, so it
> does not wait for BIND to exit.
>
> Reference:  'man wait'
>
> AlanC
>
> _______________________________________________
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users