[erlang-questions] gen_server message queue length increasing

Jon Watte jwatte@REDACTED
Sat Nov 5 00:44:47 CET 2011

> It is not ok to let a gen_server delete itself because it is not
> guaranteed to delete the reference associated with it from the shared
> table. This approach will leak memory unless the child processes don't exit
> under ideal conditions.

Is that *actually* true? Isn't the whole point of gen_server, and the
Erlang VM in general, that you always have control, and thus can always run
code, no matter what the fault?

Specifically, except for the brutal_kill termination kind, is there any
case where a gen_server:terminate() callback that does an ets delete on a
public table would ever fail?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20111104/9c6be0ff/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list