odohMei7
I am using Process.send_after(self(),:wakeup, 100_000) to trigger a GenServer handle_info callback and I am wondering what happens when I have many such GenServer processes come and go. Will the scheduled send_after eat up memory before they are triggered and send to a nonexisting process? Or are they garbage-collected when the process with destination process ID shuts down?
I use process id (not named processes) in the send_after command.
My question is basically if I can be lazy and forget scheduled send_after on GenServer shutdown or if I should honor the returned timer reference and do cancel_timer on GenServer shutdown.
Where Next?
Trending in Questions
Other Trending Topics
Latest on Elixir Forum
Sponsor Spotlight
Build Elixir applications with speed and confidence.
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #library
- #deployment
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #elixirconf
- #channels
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #podcasts
- #javascript
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #ai
- #elixirconf-us
- #blog-post
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #api
- #forms
- #hex
- #security
- #metaprogramming
Our Sponsors
Build Elixir applications with speed and confidence.
Supporting innovation across the BEAM ecosystem.
We build reliable cloud platforms for business-critical systems.
Catch errors, track performance, monitor hosts and more.
Elixir, Erlang & BEAM conferences from Code Sync - join us in 2026!
Practical resources that improve the lives of professional developers.
Bringing learning, work and compliance together since 1987.
**Building the future of software with AI, trust, and human connection.**
The team behind Membrane, Popcorn, LiveDebugger. Available for hire.
Courses that'll move you from confusion to "Aha, now I get it!"
Showing Posts 1 to 4- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
garazdawi
In general all resources of a process are expected to be cleaned up when the process terminates and timers are no exception. So it is safe to be lazy.
dimitarvp
I would always capture the return value of
Process.send_afterand usecancel_timeron it after a certain deadline but that’s mostly a matter of principle. Erlang’s VM is doing just fine in such scenarios and won’t buckle unless you bombard it with a few million of those (and even then it’s questionable if it’s going to buckle).Also
:erts_debug.size(timer)gives us 3 machine words so no need to worry about memory overhead either.odohMei7
Thank you very much. So to clarify:
send_afterdistinguishes intelligently between process ids (in which case you say timers scheduled to send to send to that process id are cancelled automatically in case that process shuts down before the timer triggered) and named processes (using an atom instead of a process id as first argument, in which case send_after will not clean up the timer before it triggers and the process registred with that atom name at trigger time will receive the message).Is this correct?
garazdawi
yes it is