Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring
Date: 2018-09-25 02:26:12
Message-ID: 20180925022612.GF1354@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:38:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, in principle any global variable touched by a signal handler should
> be sig_atomic_t. I don't know of any modern platform where using "bool"
> is unsafe, but per the C standard it could be. The case that would be
> worrisome is if setting the variable requires a load/modify/store, which
> does apply to char-sized variables on some ancient platforms. I think
> there's no need to worry for int-sized variables.

Let's change it then. ClientConnectionLost needs also to be changed as
miscadmin.h tells that it could be used in a signal handler. What do you
think about the attached?
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
pending-sig-atomic.patch text/x-diff 1.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-09-25 02:39:40 Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2018-09-25 02:20:23 Re: DNS SRV support for LDAP authentication