On 08/09/2011 04:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net>  writes:
On 08/09/2011 12:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
No.  As I pointed out upthread, the instant somebody changes the SIGALRM
handler to a non-Postgres-aware one, you are already at risk of failure.
Setting it back later is just locking the barn door after the horses
left.  Institutionalizing such a non-fix globally is even worse.
So what's your suggestion? I know what you said you'd like, but it
doesn't appear at all practical to me.
[ shrug... ]  Installing a perl module that mucks with the signal
handlers is in the "don't do that" category.  A kluge such as you
suggest will not get it out of that category; all it will do is add
useless overhead for people who are following the rules.

                        

Well, knowing what a given module might do isn't always easy (see below). I don't much like saying to people "I told you so", especially when following the advice isn't necessarily straightforward.

After some experimentation, I found that, at least on my system, if LWP uses Crypt::SSLeay for https requests then it sets an alarm handler, but if instead it uses IO::Socket::SSL an alarm handler is not set. So the answer to the OP's original problem is probably "make sure you have IO::Socket::SSL installed and that Crypt::SSLeay is not installed."


cheers

andrew




--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to