Re: Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?
Date: 2017-06-04 23:13:12
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQrC0cLVmBRofCXfCP5tTVU3hCGqBnGsVVoLXCUx7M11Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> At the moment a number of flag variables set in signal handlers have
> 'volatile bool' as type, others have 'volatile sig_atomic_t'. That's
> kinda confusing. I think either is safe, but I think we should
> standardize one of them.

sig_atomic_t's definition includes a reference to signals, so I would
vote for using it instead of bool.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-06-04 23:14:06 Re: Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-06-04 23:00:04 Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?