Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring
Date
Msg-id 20180925011311.GD1354@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:03:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> You could only fix that by blocking all signal handling during the
> handler, which would be expensive and rather pointless.
>
> I do not think that it's readily possible to improve on the current
> situation with one sig_atomic_t per flag.

Okay, thanks for the confirmation.

At the same time, all the pending flags in miscadmin.h could be switched
to sig_atomic_t if we were to be correct, no?  The counters could be
higher than 256 so that's not really possible.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring