On 08/09/2011 12:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> On 08/08/2011 05:03 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
>>> After giving it some more thought it seems reasonable to simply force the
>>> SIGALRM handler back to postgres when a plperlu function returns:
>>> pqsignal(SIGALRM, handle_sig_alarm);
>> Maybe we need to do this in some more centralized spot. It seems
>> unlikely that this problem is unique to plperlu, or even just confined
>> to PLs.
> No. As I pointed out upthread, the instant somebody changes the SIGALRM
> handler to a non-Postgres-aware one, you are already at risk of failure.
> Setting it back later is just locking the barn door after the horses
> left. Institutionalizing such a non-fix globally is even worse.
>
>
So what's your suggestion? I know what you said you'd like, but it
doesn't appear at all practical to me.
cheers
andrew
