Tom Lane wrote:
> Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But how should libpq notice that the caller handles sigpipe signals?
> > a) autodetection - if the sigpipe handler is not the default, then the 
> > caller knows what he's doing.
> > b) a new PGsetsignalhandler() function.
> > c) an additional flag passed to PGconnectdb.
> > Tom preferred a). One problem is that the autodetection is not perfect: 
> > an app could block the signal with sigprocmask, or it could install a 
> > handler that doesn't expect sigpipe signals from within libpq.
> > I would prefer b), because it guarantees that the patch has no effect on 
> > existing apps.
> I have no particular objection to (b) either, but IIRC there was some
> dispute about whether it sets a global or per-connection flag.  ISTM
> that "I have a correct signal handler" is a global assertion (within one
> process) and so a global flag is appropriate.  Someone else (Bruce?)
> didn't like that though.

I thought it should be global too, basically testing on the first
connection request.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to