Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

[Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>]

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I see for the CONNX driver code that handles signal masking:

Aren't these functions in themselves totally thread-unsafe?

That wouldn't matter in a non-thread-based implementation, but if you
are going to rely on a second thread to handle signal processing, all
of the code that manipulates the private state of the signal emulation
had better be thread-safe.

			regards, tom lane