Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>
Cc: michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring
Date: 2018-09-25 13:23:54
Message-ID: 4169.1537881834@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com> writes:
> However, what I think one could do is use a struct of volatile
> sig_atomic_t members and macros for checking/setting. Simply writing a
> value is safe in C89 and higher.

Yeah, we could group those flags in a struct, but what's the point?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-09-25 13:30:26 Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works
Previous Message Surafel Temesgen 2018-09-25 12:07:17 Re: FETCH FIRST clause PERCENT option