Re: APC/socket fix (final?)

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Claudio Natoli" <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: APC/socket fix (final?)
Date: 2004-03-25 15:54:39
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE34B5DE@algol.sollentuna.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Thanks. I was getting to that, but hadn't started :-)

Per our discussion off-list, I agree with this method, and the patch
looks fine to me.

//Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Claudio Natoli [mailto:claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:07 AM
> To: 'pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org'
> Subject: [PATCHES] APC/socket fix (final?)
>
>
>
> For application to HEAD.
>
> This should take care of most, if not all, cases where a
> backend can be interrupted in a blocking socket operation by
> a signal which itself performs a socket operation (which
> interacts badly with our APC-based signal implementation).
>
> ---
> Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from
> Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see
> <a
> href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.me
> metrics.com/em
> ailpolicy.html</a>
>
>
>

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-03-25 17:04:12 Re: [NOT] (LIKE|ILIKE) (ANY|ALL) (...)
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2004-03-25 15:42:04 [NOT] (LIKE|ILIKE) (ANY|ALL) (...)