Re: SIGCHLD handler in Postgres C function.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)zembu(dot)com>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, spshealy(at)yahoo(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SIGCHLD handler in Postgres C function.
Date: 2001-07-30 19:00:22
Message-ID: 21703.996519622@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)zembu(dot)com> writes:
> All ECHILD is doing is saying there was no child. Since we aren't really
> waiting for the child, I don't see how that's a problem.

You're missing the point: on some platforms the system() call is
returning a failure indication because of ECHILD. It's system() that's
broken, not us, and the issue is how to work around its brokenness
without sacrificing more error detection than we have to.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-07-30 19:24:01 Re: Performance TODO items
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-07-30 18:57:54 Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison"