Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>+ /*
> >>+ * We could lose a signal during this test.
> >>+ * In a multi-threaded application, this might
> >>+ * be a problem. Do any non-threaded platforms
> Threaded or non-threaded?
OK, yea, I will use threaded.
> >>+ * lack sigaction()?
> >>+ */
> Additionally, the problem is not restricted to multithreaded apps:
> signal(,SIG_IGN) clears all pending signals.
Oh, yuck. Would SIG_DFL be better here? I am thinking of adding
sigblock into that code on the assumption that if they have signal(),
they have sigblock(). Should we disable threaded builds unless they
I suppose the sigblock() would take care of the pending signal problem
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-01-08 16:53:53|
|Subject: Re: SIGPIPE handling|
|Previous:||From: Claudio Natoli||Date: 2004-01-08 07:33:10|
|Subject: fork/exec patch: CreateProcess calls for Win32|