From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: libpq and psql not on same page about SIGPIPE |
Date: | 2004-12-01 22:43:35 |
Message-ID: | 20249.1101941015@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> writes:
> Is that really worthwhile? There are half a dozend assumption about the
> C library and kernel internal efficiency of the signal handling
> functions in the proposal. Adding a PQinitLib function is obviously a
> larger change, but it solves the problem.
Not really: it only solves the problem *if you change the application*,
which is IMHO not acceptable. In particular, why should a non-threaded
app expect to have to change to deal with this issue? But we can't
safely build a thread-safe libpq.so for general use if it breaks
non-threaded apps that haven't been changed.
As for the efficiency argument, we have been doing two pqsignal()s per
send() for years and years; I see no reason to think this is worse.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-01 22:48:28 | Re: New compile warnings for inheritance |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-12-01 22:42:53 | Re: libpq and psql not on same page about SIGPIPE |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-12-01 23:44:24 | Re: [HACKERS] plperl Safe restrictions |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-12-01 22:42:53 | Re: libpq and psql not on same page about SIGPIPE |