| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring |
| Date: | 2018-09-25 01:38:11 |
| Message-ID: | 6982.1537839491@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> At the same time, all the pending flags in miscadmin.h could be switched
> to sig_atomic_t if we were to be correct, no? The counters could be
> higher than 256 so that's not really possible.
Yeah, in principle any global variable touched by a signal handler should
be sig_atomic_t. I don't know of any modern platform where using "bool"
is unsafe, but per the C standard it could be. The case that would be
worrisome is if setting the variable requires a load/modify/store, which
does apply to char-sized variables on some ancient platforms. I think
there's no need to worry for int-sized variables.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2018-09-25 02:03:51 | RE: Changing the setting of wal_sender_timeout per standby |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-09-25 01:13:11 | Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring |