Re: Unixware 714 pthreads

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unixware 714 pthreads
Date: 2004-10-28 17:55:56
Message-ID: 3581.1098986156@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr writes:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No. Why should the signal handler need re-arming?

> My impression was that once caught, signal handler for a particular signal
> is reset to SIG-DFL.

No. If your signal support is POSIX-compatible, it should not do that
because we don't set SA_RESETHAND when calling sigaction(2). If you
don't have POSIX signals, you had better have BSD-style signal(2),
which doesn't reset either. If this is not happening as expected,
you will have much worse problems than whether statement_timeout works :-(

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-10-28 18:55:45 Re: sign parsing (was: Re: [HACKERS] to_char/to_number loses sign)
Previous Message ohp 2004-10-28 17:47:38 Re: Unixware 714 pthreads