Tom Lane wrote:
> "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> > Well. There is one in the form of "make signal handlers thread-safe or
> > defer non-threadsafe handlers".
>
> As long as there is only one thread that can invoke signal handlers,
> I don't see why you think they need to be "thread-safe".
>
> It's already the case that we either handle execution of a signal
> handler everywhere, or block delivery of the signal where we can't
> handle it, because in the Unix model a signal handler can execute
> anytime.
>
> I'd be more concerned about whether the proposed implementation accurately
> models signal mask processing (ie, temporary blocking of signal delivery).
On the Win32 project page:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/main/writings/pgsql/project/win32.html
I see for the CONNX driver code that handles signal masking:
/*
The sigsetmask system call replaces the set of blocked
signals totally with a new set specified in mask. Signals
are blocked if the corresponding bit in mask is a 1.
*/
int sigsetmask(int nNewMask)
{
int nPreviousMask = nGlobalSignalMask;
nGlobalSignalMask = nNewMask;
return nPreviousMask;
}
int sigmask(int nSignal)
{
return 1 << ((nSignal) - 1);
}
CONNX_signal_function CONNX_signal(int sig, CONNX_signal_function func)
{
CONNX_signal_function oldfunc;
oldfunc = CONNX_signal_array[sig];
CONNX_signal_array[sig] = func;
return oldfunc;
}
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
