Re: SIGFPE handler is naive
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SIGFPE handler is naive |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobZ+LH75P43kGAaR4QkaTc-Od9m0zX-Nj+5OYgy90rEWA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SIGFPE handler is naive (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: SIGFPE handler is naive
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote: > It is possible to check if the signal was synchronous or was sent from > an external process. You can check siginfo->si_pid to see who sent you > the signal. I'm not sure checking that and handling it at > check_for_interrupts if it's asynchronous is the best solution or not > though. If that's portable it might be an option, but I doubt that it is. > I'm a bit confused. Didn't Tom do the laborious process of checking > the whole source tree for situations where there's shared memory > cleanup to be done in and arrange for it to happen? That was the > blocking factor to get pg_cancel_backend() to work. Is the problem > that the sigfpe handler doesn't invoke atexit() handlers? No, the problem is that SIGFPE throws an error *from the signal handler* rather than waiting for ProcessInterrupts(). -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: