Re: Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?
Date: 2017-06-06 18:45:37
Message-ID: 25209.1496774737@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> A reasonable rule would actually be to only use [u]int32 and
> sig_atomic_t, never bool.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-06-06 18:53:48 Re: logical replication - still unstable after all these months
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-06-06 18:41:06 Re: Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?