Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers