Why aren't we using strsignal(3) ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Why aren't we using strsignal(3) ?
Date: 2018-12-16 18:05:03
Message-ID: 25758.1544983503@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

While poking at the signal-reporting bug just pointed out by
Erik Rijkers, I couldn't help noticing how many places we have
that are doing some equivalent of this ugly dance:

#if defined(HAVE_DECL_SYS_SIGLIST) && HAVE_DECL_SYS_SIGLIST
{
char str2[256];

snprintf(str2, sizeof(str2), "%d: %s", WTERMSIG(exitstatus),
WTERMSIG(exitstatus) < NSIG ?
sys_siglist[WTERMSIG(exitstatus)] : "(unknown)");
snprintf(str, sizeof(str),
_("child process was terminated by signal %s"), str2);
}
#else
snprintf(str, sizeof(str),
_("child process was terminated by signal %d"),
WTERMSIG(exitstatus));
#endif

(Plus, there's at least one place that *should* be doing this and is not.)

Not only is this repetitive and unreadable, but it's also obsolete:
at least as far back as POSIX:2008, there's a function strsignal()
that you're supposed to use instead.

I propose to replace all these places with code like

snprintf(str, sizeof(str),
_("child process was terminated by signal %d: %s"),
WTERMSIG(exitstatus), pg_strsignal(WTERMSIG(exitstatus)));

where pg_strsignal is a trivial wrapper around strsignal() if that
exists, else it uses sys_siglist[] if that exists, else it just
returns "unrecognized signal".

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-12-16 18:10:42 Re: select limit error in file_fdw
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2018-12-16 17:54:47 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions