Horton

Re: SIGTTIN / SIGTTOU handling (was Re: BUG #15449)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Eric Cyr <eric.cyr@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-11-17T19:11:24Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers 
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2018-Nov-17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Given the lack of complaints, there's probably no need for back-patch,
>> but that's what I'd propose in HEAD to make this saner.

> Hmm, but the bug was reported on pg10 ... why wouldn't we backpatch this
> fix there?

The complaint was about SIGPIPE handling (or lack of it).  I do intend
to back-patch the fix for that.  This is just a side issue that came
up in that thread.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Handle EPIPE more sanely when we close a pipe reading from a program.

  2. Avoid defining SIGTTIN/SIGTTOU on Windows.

  3. Leave SIGTTIN/SIGTTOU signal handling alone in postmaster child processes.

  4. Remove some unnecessary pqsignal() calls to shave a few cycles off

  5. Fix handling of SIGCHLD, per recent pghackers discussion: on some

  6. The new files for statistical system views.

  7. Remove fork()/exec() and only do fork(). Small cleanups.