Re: SIGPIPE handling

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SIGPIPE handling
Date: 2003-11-17 00:17:49
Message-ID: 200311170017.hAH0HnB26957@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Yes, I was afraid of that. Here's another idea. If the signal handler
> > is SIG_DFL, we install our own signal handler for SIGPIPE, and set/clear a
> > global variable before/after we send().
>
> That would address the speed issue but not the multithread correctness
> issue. Also, what happens if the app replaces the signal handler later?

Well, our current setup doesn't do multithreaded properly either. In
fact, I am starting to worry about libpq's thread-safety. Should I?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-11-17 00:27:38 Re: SIGPIPE handling
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-11-16 22:46:17 Re: [PATCHES] SRA Win32 sync() code