Re: Signals in a BGW

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Signals in a BGW
Date: 2017-12-07 17:35:07
Message-ID: CA+TgmobVtC_mKtkw0KHMwvSJ-gCitrOE7myo=TxhJ65W6SCtbw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> wrote:
>> The default handler is bgworker_die ; see src/backend/postmaster
>> /bgworker.c
>> . I don't know if elog() is safe in a signal handler, but I guess in
>> the absence of non-reentrant errcontext functions...
>
> That does seem bold, doesn't it?

Yes, I think it's flat busted.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message François CHAHUNEAU 2017-12-07 17:39:05 Re: [BUGS] pg_trgm word_similarity inconsistencies or bug
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-12-07 16:42:08 Re: Speeding up pg_upgrade