Re: Mixing threaded and non-threaded
От | Scott Lamb |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Mixing threaded and non-threaded |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 401AB9D4.8070907@slamb.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Mixing threaded and non-threaded (Scott Lamb <slamb@slamb.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Mixing threaded and non-threaded
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Scott Lamb wrote: > You could just do a pthread_sigmask() before and after the > pthread_setspecific() to guarantee that no SIGPIPE will arrive on that > thread in that time. I think it's pretty safe to assume that as long as > you're not doing a pthread_[gs]etspecific() on that same pthread_key_t, > it's safe. Actually, thinking about this a bit more, that might not even be necessary. Is SIGPIPE-via-(read|write) synchronous or asynchronous? (I.e., is the SIGPIPE guaranteed to arrive during the offending system call?) I was thinking not, but maybe yes. I can't seem to find a straight answer. A lot of documents seem to confuse thread-directed and synchronous, when they're not quite the same thing. SIGALRM-via-alarm() is thread-directed but obviously asynchronous.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: