Improving the comments in pqsignal()

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Improving the comments in pqsignal()
Date: 2023-11-23 22:33:29
Message-ID: CA+hUKG+Rst1h3uo+XRgdRVnWHBa4mmj5gFbmCzZr73s-Fh_5JA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

While following along with Tristan and Heikki's thread about signals
in psql, it occurred to me that the documentation atop pqsignal() is
not very good:

* we don't explain what problem it originally solved
* we don't explain why it's still needed today
* we don't explain what else it does for us today
* we describe the backend implementation for Windows incorrectly (mea culpa)
* we vaguely mention one issue with Windows frontend code, but I
think the point made is misleading, and we don't convey the scale of
the differences

Here is my attempt to improve it.

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Improve-comments-about-pqsignal.patch text/x-patch 3.1 KB

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthias van de Meent 2023-11-23 23:07:12 Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements
Previous Message David Rowley 2023-11-23 22:29:26 Re: Properly pathify the union planner