Re: EINTR in ftruncate()

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: EINTR in ftruncate()
Date: 2022-07-14 14:46:52
Message-ID: 20220714144652.jph7exiywushg4gc@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2022-Jul-15, Thomas Munro wrote:

> I checked that this throw-away assertion doesn't fail currently:
>
> if (IsUnderPostmaster)
> + {
> + sigset_t old;
> + sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, NULL, &old);
> + Assert(memcmp(&old, &UnBlockSig, sizeof(UnBlockSig)) == 0);
> PG_SETMASK(&BlockSig);
> + }
>
> ... but now I'm wondering if we should be more defensive and possibly
> even save/restore the mask.

Yeah, that sounds better to me.

> Originally I discounted that because I thought I had to go through
> PG_SETMASK for portability reasons, but on closer inspection, I don't
> see any reason not to use sigprocmask directly in Unix-only code.

ISTM it would be cleaner to patch PG_SETMASK to have a second argument
and to return the original mask if that's not NULL. This is more
invasive, but there aren't that many callsites of that macro.

--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tushar 2022-07-14 14:53:37 Re: replacing role-level NOINHERIT with a grant-level option
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2022-07-14 14:26:10 Re: EINTR in ftruncate()