[erlang-questions] Supervisor Death Kills Workers?

[Rapsey]

Trusting the supervisor is like trusting the erlang runtime, gen_server and
everything else. If you can't trust that to work, what's the point of using
Erlang anyway?


Sergej

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:06 PM, David Mercer <dmercer@REDACTED> wrote:

> As workers are linked to their supervisors, the behaviour of a supervisor,
> therefore, is to kill its workers if it itself dies.  I had thought that it
> was the job - and about the only job - of the supervisor to restart workers
> when they stop, not to stop the workers if not working under supervision.
> To my thinking, this introduces a single point of failure where previously
> there wasn't: if the top-level supervisor terminates, then you've lost your
> entire system.
>
>
>
> Am I misunderstanding supervision trees and the supervisor behaviour, or is
> there a reason for introducing a single point of failure into what was a
> distributed fault-tolerant system?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your help in understanding this.  I was wondering about this all
> weekend.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> David
>
>