Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't see that this proposal adds any security.
>>
> It's not about security:
The proposal would be more salable if it addressed the security problem
too. As is, you are proposing putting a large wart on libpq's API in
order to work around an inefficiency that's only been shown to exist in
one version of one operating system. I'd like to look for other
solutions before we do that.
One possibility that comes to mind is simply to test whether the SIGPIPE
handler is already SIG_IGN before we munge it. Ideally we'd do that
once when the conn object is created, but even if it had to be done more
often, it might still be a net win.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
