From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker |
Date: | 2012-12-05 22:25:02 |
Message-ID: | 20121205222502.GY27424@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2012-12-05 18:42:42 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > <para>
> > <structfield>bgw_sighup</structfield> and <structfield>bgw_sigterm</> are
> > pointers to functions that will be installed as signal handlers for the new
> > - process.
> > + process. XXX: Can they be NULL?
> > </para>
>
> Hm. The code doesn't check, so what happens is probably a bug anyhow.
> I don't know whether sigaction crashes in this case; its manpage doesn't
> say. I guess the right thing to do is have RegisterBackgroundWorker
> check for a NULL sighandler, and set it to something standard if so (say
> SIG_IGN for SIGHUP and maybe quickdie() or similar for SIGTERM).
Afair a NULL sigaction is used to query the current handler. Which
indirectly might lead to problems due to the wrong handler being called.
Setting up SIG_IGN and quickdie in that case seems to be sensible.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-12-05 22:28:45 | Re: Dumping an Extension's Script |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-05 22:23:08 | Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2 |