I agree with all that you say Tom, I'm just asking for some help to debug
this, Now that Larry is a litle off the list, I'm feeling really lonely on
UW.
SCO won't do anything until I come up with a test program that fails. All
my tries did work until then.
I use other threaded progs like postfix or bind that nether fail.
I'm really at lost. Would you/someone help me?
Best regards
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:55:56 -0400
> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unixware 714 pthreads
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> No. Why should the signal handler need re-arming?
>
> > My impression was that once caught, signal handler for a particular signal
> > is reset to SIG-DFL.
>
> No. If your signal support is POSIX-compatible, it should not do that
> because we don't set SA_RESETHAND when calling sigaction(2). If you
> don't have POSIX signals, you had better have BSD-style signal(2),
> which doesn't reset either. If this is not happening as expected,
> you will have much worse problems than whether statement_timeout works :-(
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Olivier PRENANT Tel: +33-5-61-50-97-00 (Work)
6, Chemin d'Harraud Turrou +33-5-61-50-97-01 (Fax)
31190 AUTERIVE +33-6-07-63-80-64 (GSM)
FRANCE Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make your life a dream, make your dream a reality. (St Exupery)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
