On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > If this use of SIGFPE is handy, we should expose it under a better name. What > hazards make it unsafe?
Well, the most obvious problem is that a backend might receive it while holding a spinlock. > Overall, though, I think it best to plug this. We could set a flag before > each operation, like evaluation of SQL arithmetic, for which SIGFPE is normal. > If the signal handler sees the flag set, raise ERROR. Otherwise, PANIC. Code > running with the flag set would, of course, need to be ready for a spontaneous > elog(ERROR) at any instruction. Yeah, that's what I thought of, too. It seems like it'd be a lot of work to get there, though. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
