Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQrC0cLVmBRofCXfCP5tTVU3hCGqBnGsVVoLXCUx7M11Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> 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's definition includes a reference to signals, so I would
vote for using it instead of bool.
-- 
Michael

pgsql-hackers by date:

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