| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: longjmp in psql considered harmful |
| Date: | 2006-06-11 17:58:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20060611175845.GA20757@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 12:32:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think we should try very hard to get rid of the longjmp in the signal
> handler altogether. I notice it doesn't work anyway in the Windows
> port, so this would improve portability as well as safety. The signal
> handler should just set a flag that would be checked at safe points,
> much as we do in the backend. (The bit about doing PQcancel can stay,
> though, since that's carefully designed to be signal-safe.)
I submitted a patch for this ages ago and AFAIK it's still in the
queue. Have you any issues with the way I did it there?
Have a ncie day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-11 18:08:12 | Re: longjmp in psql considered harmful |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2006-06-11 17:20:17 | Re: Fabian Pascal and RDBMS deficiencies in fully |