Re: Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?
Date: 2017-06-06 19:14:52
Message-ID: 20170606191452.gdqr3r4loits564g@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-06-06 14:45:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > A reasonable rule would actually be to only use [u]int32 and
> > sig_atomic_t, never bool.
>
> Yes, I'd agree with that.

Cool. I propose we change, once branched, the existing code using
booleans, and codify that practice in sources.sgml already existing
section about signal handlers.

- Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-06-06 19:21:34 Re: Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-06-06 19:09:32 Re: logical replication - still unstable after all these months