From: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: libpq and psql not on same page about SIGPIPE |
Date: | 2004-12-01 06:52:42 |
Message-ID: | 41AD6A3A.1040004@colorfullife.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Comments? This seems like our only solution.
>
>
>
This would be a transparent solution. Another approach would be:
- Use the old 7.3 approach by default. This means perfect backward
compatibility for single-threaded apps and broken multithreaded apps.
- Add a new PQinitDB(int disableSigpipeHandler) initialization function.
Document that multithreaded apps must call the function with
disableSigpipeHandle=1 and handle SIGPIPE for libpq. Perhaps with a
reference implementation in libpq (i.e. a sigpipeMode with 0 for old
approach, 1 for do nothing, 2 for install our own handler).
It would prefer that approach:
It means that the multithreaded libpq apps must be updated [are there
any?], but the solution is simpler and less fragile than calling 4
signal handling function in a row to selectively block SIGPIPE per-thread.
--
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-12-01 08:02:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Adding Reply-To: <listname> to Lists configuration ... |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-12-01 05:39:04 | Re: [ANNOUNCE] USENET vs Mailing Lists Poll ... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2004-12-01 07:37:51 | Re: Developer's FAQ update |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-12-01 04:29:56 | Re: libpq and psql not on same page about SIGPIPE |