| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: plperl crash with Debian 6 (64 bit), pl/perlu, libwww and https |
| Date: | 2011-08-09 20:32:35 |
| Message-ID: | 12251.1312921955@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 08/09/2011 12:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No. As I pointed out upthread, the instant somebody changes the SIGALRM
>> handler to a non-Postgres-aware one, you are already at risk of failure.
>> Setting it back later is just locking the barn door after the horses
>> left. Institutionalizing such a non-fix globally is even worse.
> So what's your suggestion? I know what you said you'd like, but it
> doesn't appear at all practical to me.
[ shrug... ] Installing a perl module that mucks with the signal
handlers is in the "don't do that" category. A kluge such as you
suggest will not get it out of that category; all it will do is add
useless overhead for people who are following the rules.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-08-09 20:36:30 | Re: Ignore lost+found when checking if a directory is empty |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-08-09 20:28:29 | Re: Ignore lost+found when checking if a directory is empty |