On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I don't think that your analysis here is correct. The sigdelset call
> > is manipulating BlockSig, and the subsequent PG_SETMASK call is
> > working with UnblockSig, so it doesn't make sense to view one as a
> > preparatory step for the other.
>
> That SETMASK call will certainly unblock SIGQUIT, so I don't see what
> your point is.
I can't figure out if you're trolling me here or what. It's true that
the PG_SETMASK() call will certainly unblock SIGQUIT, but that would
also be true if the sigdelset() call were absent.
> Anyway, the bottom line is that that code's been like
> that for a decade or two without complaints, so I'm disinclined to
> mess with it on the strength of nothing much.
Really? Have you reversed your policy of wanting the comments to
accurately describe what the code does?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
