| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Zdenek Kotala <zdenek(dot)kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in signal handler |
| Date: | 2006-05-11 14:11:00 |
| Message-ID: | 6390.1147356660@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> writes:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
>> Running unsafe functions within a signal handler is not unsafe per-se.
>> It's only unsafe if the main program could also be running unsafe
>> functions.
> I don't disagree with your reasoning, but does POSIX actually say
> this?
The fact remains that the postmaster has *always* been coded like that,
and we have *never* seen any problems. Barring proof that there is a
problem, I'm uninterested in rewriting it just because someone doesn't
like it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-11 15:00:01 | Upcoming releases |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-11 14:03:16 | Re: Bug in signal handler |