Re: SIGPIPE handling, take two.

From: Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SIGPIPE handling, take two.
Date: 2003-11-11 17:37:52
Message-ID: 3FB11E70.9090800@colorfullife.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:

>I don't think we need to complicate pqsignal's API for this. Instead
>we'd better document that SIGPIPE handling has to be set up and kept
>stable before doing any libpq operations in a multithread app.
>
>
Not reliable.
An app could install it's own signal handler and block SIGPIPE around
all libpq calls. Signal blocking is per-thread. But the SIG_IGN/restore
sequence affects the whole app - PQconnectdb calls would result in
randomly dropped SIGPIPE signals.

--
Manfred

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-11-11 18:22:04 Re: SIGPIPE handling, take two.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-11-11 17:28:12 Re: SIGPIPE handling, take two.