> > The patch works nicely. However there were internal concerns that this
> > change might cause some incompatibility to existing scripts. I would
> > like to ask for your opinion on it.
> >
> > I am trying to come up with a scenario where this change might cause
> > existing script to break. Thi
On 6/23/15 5:13 AM, Vladimir Marek wrote:
> The patch works nicely. However there were internal concerns that this
> change might cause some incompatibility to existing scripts. I would
> like to ask for your opinion on it.
>
> I am trying to come up with a scenario where this change might cause
Hi Chet,
...
> > a) decreasing size of the 'bgpids' list. Why do we need 30k entries if
> > we don't trust that the IDs are unique? Maybe configuration or runtime
> > option?
>
> I've thought about it. Posix only requires saving the statuses of the last
> CHILD_MAX asynchronous pids. The bash
> > > a) decreasing size of the 'bgpids' list. Why do we need 30k entries if
> > > we don't trust that the IDs are unique? Maybe configuration or runtime
> > > option?
> >
> > I've thought about it. Posix only requires saving the statuses of the last
> > CHILD_MAX asynchronous pids. The bash cod
> > a) decreasing size of the 'bgpids' list. Why do we need 30k entries if
> > we don't trust that the IDs are unique? Maybe configuration or runtime
> > option?
>
> I've thought about it. Posix only requires saving the statuses of the last
> CHILD_MAX asynchronous pids. The bash code has tradit
On 5/18/15 5:45 AM, Vladimir Marek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our customer updated from bash 3.0.16 to 3.2.57 and claims that it
> caused decreased performance. The report is slightly vague and says that
> bash now consumes more memory and is slower after running ~ 3
> commands. My current belief (and I
