Re: Improving the comments in pqsignal() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Improving the comments in pqsignal()
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGKq3UoUKfXhN2PhkbMKxpbUnSHSQu1+1UN4diDc5zsmiQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Improving the comments in pqsignal()  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 8:55 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 24/11/2023 00:33, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > This is program 10.12 from Advanced Programming in the UNIX
> > Environment, with minor changes.
> In the copy I found online (3rd edition), it's "Figure 10.18", not
> "program 10.12".
>
> Other than that, looks good.

Thanks.  I removed that number (it's easy enough to find), replaced
"underdocumented" with "unspecified" (a word from the later edition of
Stevens) and added a line break to break up that final paragraph, and
pushed.  Time to upgrade my treeware copy of that book...

One thing I worried about while writing that text: why is it OK that
win32_port.h redefines SIG_DFL etc, if they might be exposed to the
system signal()?  But it seems we picked the same numerical values.  A
little weird, but not going to break anything.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Questions regarding Index AMs and natural ordering
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Lifetime of commit timestamps