Fri Feb 23 17:01:05 CET 2001
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Lennart Öhman wrote:
>There are several reasons to this:
>1) If the supervisor would count your explicit manipulations,
>do you want it to immediately restart a terminated child? Most
>often not. Therefore this management must be done outside the
Well, I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation. Obviously, it's
not desireable that a terminate_child/2 would cause the child to
immediately restart. That doesn't automatically mean that an ordered
restart shouldn't be counted towards the restart frequency.
However, a call to terminate_child/2 causes the child to die with
reason = shutdown. Even though it's not really stated in the manual,
this should count as a normal exit. According to the manual then, the
child will not be restarted.
However, if a supervisor escalates, or a supervisor with one_for_all
or rest_for_one supervision detects a child crash, other children may
be terminated with reason = shutdown, and then immediately restarted.
Thus, the child cannot make an assumption that.... actually, with the
current supervisor, the child can never make _any_ assumptions,
because it has no way of finding out why it is being started.
Regardless, the manual should be interpreted as implying that
explicit terminate_child()/restart_child() operations do not count
as non-normal exits. Thus, the implied semantics (by omission, if
nothing else) of these functions are that they cannot trigger an
I have no problem with this behaviour. However, it could be stated
explicitly in the manual.
Ulf Wiger tfn: +46 8 719 81 95
Senior System Architect mob: +46 70 519 81 95
Strategic Product & System Management ATM Multiservice Networks
Data Backbone & Optical Services Division Ericsson Telecom AB
More information about the erlang-questions