Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoaaQTNur+0=P47L_QL4BdGmyyG_cu+biGBpFGoQ=nxysw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handlerflags?
Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I think that's a pretty good argument, really. If there exists a >> platform where only sig_atomic_t is safe to read from a signal >> handler, then we already don't work on that platform. Even saving and >> restoring errno isn't safe in that case. > > That's an argument from false premises. The question here is what types > are safe for an interrupt handler to *change*, not what can it read. OK, but we certainly have code in signal handlers that does: int save_errno = errno; /* stuff */ errno = save_errno; If that's not a signal handler changing an int, color me confused. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: