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
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[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