Re: [small patch] Change datatype of ParallelMessagePending from "volatile bool" to "volatile sig_atomic_t"

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, 'Amit Kapila' <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [small patch] Change datatype of ParallelMessagePending from "volatile bool" to "volatile sig_atomic_t"
Date: 2022-09-27 00:36:22
Message-ID: YzJFhqG1/1zHhV7u@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 04:50:36PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> You are right. bool is not usually a problem in a signal handler, but
> sig_atomic_t is the type we ought to use. I'll go adjust that.

Done this one. I have scanned the code, but did not notice a similar
mistake. It is worth noting that we have only one remaining "volatile
bool" in the headers now.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2022-09-27 01:07:53 Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables?
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2022-09-27 00:15:59 Re: Refactor backup related code (was: Is it correct to say, "invalid data in file \"%s\"", BACKUP_LABEL_FILE in do_pg_backup_stop?)