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 | 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
