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 18:57:38
Message-ID: 24166.1150052258@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:
> As it states in the comment, you can't remove the longjump because
> it's the only way to break out of the read() call when using BSD signal
> semantics (unless you're proposing non-blocking read+select()). So the
> patch sets up the sigjump just before the read() and allows the routine
> to return. If you're not waiting for read(), no sigjump is done.

I think you're missing my point, which is: do we need control-C to
force a break out of that fgets at all?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-06-11 19:03:39 Re: pl/tcl regression failed
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-06-11 18:50:36 Re: TODO: Add pg_get_acldef(), pg_get_typedefault(), pg_get_attrdef(),