Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> 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 ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
