| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: stopgap fix for signal handling during restore_command |
| Date: | 2023-03-01 23:26:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20230301232633.GA1825532@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 03:13:04PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> FWIW, I think we could rely on va_start() et al to be signal safe. The
> standardese isn't super clear about this, because they aren't functions, and
> posix only talks about functions being async signal safe...
Good to know. I couldn't tell whether that was a safe assumption from
briefly reading around.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-03-01 23:29:28 | Re: We shouldn't signal process groups with SIGQUIT |
| Previous Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2023-03-01 23:18:27 | Re: Memory leak from ExecutorState context? |