Re: pgsql: Use SIGURG rather than SIGUSR1 for latches.
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Use SIGURG rather than SIGUSR1 for latches. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 40654.1618606161@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Use SIGURG rather than SIGUSR1 for latches. (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Use SIGURG rather than SIGUSR1 for latches.
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 12:46 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Is it really necessary to mess with UnBlockSig? > It's necessary to keep it blocked, because, to quote signalfd(2): > Normally, the set of signals to be received via the file descriptor > should be blocked using sigprocmask(2), to prevent the signals being > handled according to their default dispositions. Meh. OK. (I would've thought that a SIG_IGN'd signal would be dropped immediately even if blocked; that's the behavior that dummy_handler is designed to prevent, and I'm pretty sure that that code is there because we saw it actually behaving that way on some platforms. But apparently not on Linux?) > ... All the calls to set the > disposition to SIG_IGN explicitly are probably unnecessary since > that's the default disposition, but I figured that was somehow useful > as documentation, and a place to hang a comment. Agreed, I would not suggest removing those. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: