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 |
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 |