Re: libpq and psql not on same page about SIGPIPE

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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