| 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 22:40:00 |
| Message-ID: | 22880.996532800@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:
> Looking at source on the web, I found:
> kernel/signal.c:1042
> * Note the silly behaviour of SIGCHLD: SIG_IGN means that the
> * signal isn't actually ignored, but does automatic child
> * reaping, while SIG_DFL is explicitly said by POSIX to force
> * the signal to be ignored.
Hmm, interesting. If you'll recall, the start of this thread was a
proposal to change our backends' handling of SIGCHLD from SIG_IGN to
SIG_DFL (and get rid of explicit tests for ECHILD). I didn't quite see
why changing the handler should make a difference, but above we seem to
have the smoking gun.
Which kernel, and which version, is the above quote from?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2001-07-30 22:41:43 | Re: OpenUnix 8 Patchj |
| Previous Message | Bill Studenmund | 2001-07-30 22:15:16 | Re: SIGCHLD handler in Postgres C function. |