Re: pgsql: Use SIGURG rather than SIGUSR1 for latches.
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Use SIGURG rather than SIGUSR1 for latches. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKGJpxMvQgDPBvqafh0JkEfHNqxCz0BHrF-5X1uo-95fm6Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Use SIGURG rather than SIGUSR1 for latches. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Use SIGURG rather than SIGUSR1 for latches.
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 8:49 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > (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?) Yeah, it's a point of variation between platforms. POSIX: "If the action associated with a blocked signal is to ignore the signal and if that signal is generated for the process, it is unspecified whether the signal is discarded immediately upon generation or remains pending." Linux: "Blocked signals are never ignored, since the signal handler may change by the time it is unblocked." BSDs, Darwin: "If the signal is being ignored, then we forget about it immediately."
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: