Re: [RFC,PATCH] SIGPIPE masking in local socket connections

Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 6/2/09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> We've had problems before with userland headers not being in sync
>> with what the kernel knows.

> Well, we could just test in configure perhaps?

The single most common way to get into that kind of trouble is to
compile on machine A then install the executables on machine B with
a different kernel. So a configure test wouldn't give me any warm
feeling at all.

A feature that is exercised via setsockopt is probably fairly safe,
since you can check for failure of the setsockopt call and then do
it the old way. MSG_NOSIGNAL is a recv() flag, no? The question
is whether you could expect that the recv() would fail if it had
any unrecognized flags. Not sure if I trust that. SO_NOSIGPIPE
seems safer.

regards, tom lane