Re: SIGPIPE handling - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SIGPIPE handling
Date
Msg-id 28720.1069003983@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SIGPIPE handling  (Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>)
Responses Re: SIGPIPE handling
List pgsql-patches
Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> writes:
> But how should libpq notice that the caller handles sigpipe signals?
> a) autodetection - if the sigpipe handler is not the default, then the
> caller knows what he's doing.
> b) a new PGsetsignalhandler() function.
> c) an additional flag passed to PGconnectdb.

> Tom preferred a). One problem is that the autodetection is not perfect:
> an app could block the signal with sigprocmask, or it could install a
> handler that doesn't expect sigpipe signals from within libpq.
> I would prefer b), because it guarantees that the patch has no effect on
> existing apps.

I have no particular objection to (b) either, but IIRC there was some
dispute about whether it sets a global or per-connection flag.  ISTM
that "I have a correct signal handler" is a global assertion (within one
process) and so a global flag is appropriate.  Someone else (Bruce?)
didn't like that though.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Kurt Roeckx
Date:
Subject: Re: SIGPIPE handling
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: SRA Win32 sync() code