Re: longjmp in psql considered harmful

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: longjmp in psql considered harmful
Date: 2006-06-11 18:08:12
Message-ID: 20981.1150049292@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 12:32:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we should try very hard to get rid of the longjmp in the signal
>> handler altogether.

> I submitted a patch for this ages ago and AFAIK it's still in the
> queue. Have you any issues with the way I did it there?

If you're speaking of
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-10/msg00194.php
it doesn't appear to me to remove longjmp from the signal handler.
Was there a later version?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ohp 2006-06-11 18:15:01 pl/tcl regression failed
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-06-11 17:58:45 Re: longjmp in psql considered harmful