Re: libpq and psql not on same page about SIGPIPE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: libpq and psql not on same page about SIGPIPE
Date
Msg-id 20249.1101941015@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: libpq and psql not on same page about SIGPIPE  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: libpq and psql not on same page about SIGPIPE
List pgsql-hackers
Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> writes:
> Is that really worthwhile? There are half a dozend assumption about the 
> C library and kernel internal efficiency of the signal handling 
> functions in the proposal. Adding a PQinitLib function is obviously a 
> larger change, but it solves the problem.

Not really: it only solves the problem *if you change the application*,
which is IMHO not acceptable.  In particular, why should a non-threaded
app expect to have to change to deal with this issue?  But we can't
safely build a thread-safe libpq.so for general use if it breaks
non-threaded apps that haven't been changed.

As for the efficiency argument, we have been doing two pqsignal()s per
send() for years and years; I see no reason to think this is worse.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: New compile warnings for inheritance
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq and psql not on same page about SIGPIPE