From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | chris(at)bitmead(dot)com, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] psql and Control-C |
Date: | 2000-02-18 15:23:49 |
Message-ID: | 287.950887429@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> writes:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, there is some chance of screwing up libreadline --- I don't
>> know enough about its innards to know if it can survive losing
>> control at a random point. If we can confine the region where longjmp
>> will be attempted to just the point where the program is blocked
>> waiting for user input, it'd probably be pretty safe.
> Readline has an official way to preempt is, namely setting rl_done to
> non-zero. I can take a look how it copes with a longjmp from a signal
> handler, but I wouldn't set my hopes too high.
Oh? Maybe we don't *need* a longjmp: maybe the signal handler just
needs to do either send-a-cancel or set-rl_done depending on the
current state of a flag that's set by the main line code.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-02-18 15:35:01 | Re: [HACKERS] Date/time types: big changeu |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-02-18 14:48:46 | Re: [HACKERS] Date/time types: big change |