Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring
Date: 2018-09-25 22:41:18
Message-ID: 20180925224118.GA1659@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:27:35PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-09-25 11:50:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> PGDLLIMPORT changes don't get back-patched as well...
>
> We've been more aggressive with that lately, and I think that's good. It
> just is a unnecessarily portability barrier for extension to be
> judicious in applying that.

Agreed. Are there any objections with the proposal of changing the
interruption pending flags in miscadmin.h to use sig_atomic_t?
ClientConnectionLost would gain PGDLLIMPORT at the same time.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-09-25 22:42:23 Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-09-25 22:03:36 Re: Slotification of partition tuple conversion