| From: | "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | 'Amit Kapila' <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | [small patch] Change datatype of ParallelMessagePending from "volatile bool" to "volatile sig_atomic_t" |
| Date: | 2022-09-26 06:57:28 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB58667C15A95A234720F4F876F5529@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi hackers,
While reviewing [1], I and Amit noticed that a flag ParallelMessagePending is defined
as "volatile bool", but other flags set by signal handlers are defined as "volatile sig_atomic_t".
The datatype has been defined in standard C,
and it says that variables referred by signal handlers should be "volatile sig_atomic_t".
(Please see my observation [2])
This may be not needed because any failures had been reported,
but I thought their datatype should be same and attached a small patch.
How do you think?
[1]: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/39/3621/
[2]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/TYAPR01MB5866C056BB9F81A42B85D20BF54E9%40TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Change-datatype-of-ParallelMessagePending-to-keep-co.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-09-26 07:04:26 | A doubt about a newly added errdetail |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-09-26 06:46:54 | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson - v13 |