On 1 Nov, Tom Lane wrote:
Manfred Spraul [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
What we really want is to turn off SIGPIPE delivery on our socket
(only), but AFAIK there is no API to do that.
Linux has as MSG_NOSIGNAL flag for send(), but that seems to be Linux
specific.
Hmm ... a
Tom Lane wrote:
It strikes me that sigpipe handling will be a global affair in any
particular application --- it's unlikely that it would be correct for
some PG connections and wrong for others. So one possibility is to make
the control variable be global (static) and thus it could be set before
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm a bit unfamiliar with this stuff, so I wanted to ask if this was
something that Linux appears to be handling differently than other OS's,
or if this was a platform specific issue with postgresql.
It's generic to all Unixen.
regards, tom
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
On Sunday, Nov 2, 2003, at 18:16 Europe/Berlin, Tom Lane wrote:
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
AgentM wrote:
That wouldn't offer a solution for people who use SIGPIPE for other
things during the lifetime of the program (after creating the
connection) and if a SIGPIPE handler is called due to the connection,
the handler won't be expecting the source, and polling signal for
state is
Tom Lane wrote:
A bigger objection is that we couldn't get libssl to use it (AFAIK).
The flag really needs to be settable on the socket (eg, via fcntl),
not per-send.
It's a per-send flag, it's not possible to force it on with a fcntl :-(
What about an option to skip the sigaction calls for apps
Manfred Spraul [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about an option to skip the sigaction calls for apps that can
handle SIGPIPE?
If the app is ignoring SIGPIPE globally, then our calls will have no
effect anyway. I don't see that this proposal adds any security.
regards,
Tom Lane wrote:
Manfred Spraul [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about an option to skip the sigaction calls for apps that can
handle SIGPIPE?
If the app is ignoring SIGPIPE globally, then our calls will have no
effect anyway.
Wrong. From the opengroup manpage:
SIG_IGN - ignore signal
