Re: PQinSend question

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PQinSend question
Date: 2004-01-11 17:28:53
Message-ID: 17056.1073842133@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> writes:
>> return false; /* No threading, so we can't be in send() */

> Why not? Signal delivery can interrupt send() even with single-threaded
> users.

It looks like Bruce left the old logic in place for unthreaded
implementations: we just replace the signal handler during every send().
So there's no need for PQinSend() to do anything useful.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Manfred Spraul 2004-01-11 17:33:31 Re: libpq thread safety
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-01-11 17:18:05 Re: psql \d option list overloaded