Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?
Date
Msg-id 4257.1496618046@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handlerflags?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> At the moment a number of flag variables set in signal handlers have
> 'volatile bool' as type, others have 'volatile sig_atomic_t'.  That's
> kinda confusing.   I think either is safe, but I think we should
> standardize one of them.

sig_atomic_t is more standards-conforming, I should think.  I'm not sure
if there are any current platforms where a store to a char variable
wouldn't be atomic, but why live dangerously?

I'd be inclined to let the code continue to treat the variables as
if they were bool, ie store "true" and "false" not "1" and "0"
into them.  That should be perfectly safe.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handlerflags?