Re: Bug in signal handler
От | Martijn van Oosterhout |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bug in signal handler |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20060511164151.GH30113@svana.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Bug in signal handler (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Bug in signal handler
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:11:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org> writes: > > I don't disagree with your reasoning, but does POSIX actually say > > this? > > The fact remains that the postmaster has *always* been coded like that, > and we have *never* seen any problems. Barring proof that there is a > problem, I'm uninterested in rewriting it just because someone doesn't > like it. It should probably also be remembered that the "fix" would involve either polling the status by having select() return more often, or using sigsetjmp/siglongjmp. The cure is definitly worse than the disease. In a sense the test for errno == EINTR there is redundant since the backend has arranged that EINTR can never be returned (signals don't interrupt system calls) and there's a fair bit of code that relies on that... Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: