Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=3hxjRWosK=xneuUL6nh1qP9ugqQhqrTCAyoccmvhvbnw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums  (Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>)
Responses Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums  (Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>)
Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums  (Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:07 AM Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de> wrote:
> I've attached v4 of the patch.

Hi Michael,

Windows doesn't like sigaction:

https://ci.appveyor.com/project/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/build/1.0.15189

I'm not sure if we classify this as a "frontend" program.  Should it
be using pqsignal() from src/port/pqsignal.c?  Or perhaps just
sigaction as you have it (pqsignal.c says that we require sigaction on
all Unices), but #ifndef WIN32 around that stuff, since SIGUSR1 is
never going to work anyway.

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jacob Champion
Date:
Subject: Re: Obtaining a more consistent view definition when a UNION subquerycontains undecorated constants
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables