Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] signal weirdness

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Galbavy <Peter(dot)Galbavy(at)knowledge(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] signal weirdness
Date: 1999-03-29 15:42:28
Message-ID: 4563.922722148@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Galbavy <Peter(dot)Galbavy(at)knowledge(dot)com> writes:
> Is their any reason not to replace the kill() with a longjmp()

I always wondered why elog uses such a bizarre approach to transferring
control back to the main loop, myself.
	kill() self -> SIGQUIT signal catcher -> longjmp -> main loop.
Seems to me two of these steps could be eliminated ;-)

So far there hasn't been a reason to touch the code (if it ain't broke
don't fix it) ... but if it is broken on at least one platform, the
situation is different.

I'd say OpenBSD is definitely broken, however.  A process should be
allowed to signal itself.  File a bug report...

			regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 1999-03-29 15:45:07
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpq++
Previous:From: Vince VielhaberDate: 1999-03-29 13:26:37
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpq++

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group