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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring
Date
Msg-id 4169.1537881834@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring  (Chris Travers <chris.travers@adjust.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring  (Chris Travers <chris.travers@adjust.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Chris Travers <chris.travers@adjust.com> writes:
> However,  what I think one could do is use a struct of volatile
> sig_atomic_t members and macros for checking/setting.  Simply writing a
> value is safe in C89 and higher.

Yeah, we could group those flags in a struct, but what's the point?

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Surafel Temesgen
Date:
Subject: Re: FETCH FIRST clause PERCENT option
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works