Re: longjmp in psql considered harmful - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Martijn van Oosterhout
Subject Re: longjmp in psql considered harmful
Date
Msg-id 20060611175845.GA20757@svana.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to longjmp in psql considered harmful  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: longjmp in psql considered harmful  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 12:32:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think we should try very hard to get rid of the longjmp in the signal
> handler altogether.  I notice it doesn't work anyway in the Windows
> port, so this would improve portability as well as safety.  The signal
> handler should just set a flag that would be checked at safe points,
> much as we do in the backend.  (The bit about doing PQcancel can stay,
> though, since that's carefully designed to be signal-safe.)

I submitted a patch for this ages ago and AFAIK it's still in the
queue. Have you any issues with the way I did it there?

Have a ncie day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] ADD/DROP INHERITS
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: longjmp in psql considered harmful