Re: Improving the comments in pqsignal()

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improving the comments in pqsignal()
Date: 2023-11-24 21:11:54
Message-ID: CA+hUKGKq3UoUKfXhN2PhkbMKxpbUnSHSQu1+1UN4diDc5zsmiQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 8:55 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> On 24/11/2023 00:33, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > This is program 10.12 from Advanced Programming in the UNIX
> > Environment, with minor changes.
> In the copy I found online (3rd edition), it's "Figure 10.18", not
> "program 10.12".
>
> Other than that, looks good.

Thanks. I removed that number (it's easy enough to find), replaced
"underdocumented" with "unspecified" (a word from the later edition of
Stevens) and added a line break to break up that final paragraph, and
pushed. Time to upgrade my treeware copy of that book...

One thing I worried about while writing that text: why is it OK that
win32_port.h redefines SIG_DFL etc, if they might be exposed to the
system signal()? But it seems we picked the same numerical values. A
little weird, but not going to break anything.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2023-11-24 22:56:48 Re: Lifetime of commit timestamps
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2023-11-24 19:43:36 Re: Questions regarding Index AMs and natural ordering