Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > If the bgworker developer gets really tense about this stuff (or > anything at all, really), they can create a completely new sigmask and > do sigaddset() etc. Since this is all C code, we cannot keep them from > doing anything, really; I think what we need to provide here is just a > framework to ease development of simple cases.
An important point here is that if a bgworker does need to do its own signal manipulation --- for example, installing custom signal handlers --- it would be absolutely catastrophic for us to unblock signals before reaching worker-specific code; signals might arrive before the process had a chance to fix their handling. So I'm against Heikki's auto-unblock proposal. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers