Re: SIGPIPE handling, take two.
От | Manfred Spraul |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SIGPIPE handling, take two. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3FB11AE5.2060707@colorfullife.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SIGPIPE handling, take two. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: SIGPIPE handling, take two.
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote: >Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > >>I think this is the patch I like. >> >> > >The #if coding is messy and unnecessary. You could do the test as per >the non-POSIX variant using two calls of pqsignal(), and not have any >system dependence here, nor a need for <signal.h>. > > What about multithreaded apps? old = pgsignal(SIPEPIPE, SIG_IGN); ** another thread calls sigaction(SIGPIPE,,); pgsignal(SIGPIPE, old); And the signal state is corrupted. What about extending pgsignal: pgsignal(signo, SIG_ERR); reads the current signal handler. I'll update my patch. From your other mail: >No, because this patch does not have any global effect on the signal >handling. It might be unnecessary to check per-connection, but it >doesn't hurt, and on grounds of cleanliness I'd prefer to avoid a global >variable. > > I agree - global state would require global synchronization. -- Manfred
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: