From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags? |
Date: | 2017-06-04 23:26:41 |
Message-ID: | 4688.1496618801@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:
> On 2017-06-04 19:14:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> sig_atomic_t is more standards-conforming, I should think. I'm not sure
>> if there are any current platforms where a store to a char variable
>> wouldn't be atomic, but why live dangerously?
> Well, we already have some variables that aren't actually booleans,
> although I think all of them are only read not manipulated in signal
> handlers (InterruptHoldoffCount etc).
Hm. Well, according to POSIX one may rely on sig_atomic_t being able
to hold the values 0..127 on all platforms. So we might be able to
get away with converting InterruptHoldoffCount to sig_atomic_t if we
needed to. In the absence of evidence that we need to, I wouldn't.
But I have no problem with standardizing on using sig_atomic_t for
variables that are assigned to by signal handlers.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2017-06-05 01:08:12 | Re: logical replication - still unstable after all these months |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-06-04 23:21:39 | Re: Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags? |