On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:54 AM Chris Travers <chris.trav...@adjust.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 3:23 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Chris Travers <chris.trav...@adjust.com> writes: >> > However, what I think one could do is use a struct of volatile >> > sig_atomic_t members and macros for checking/setting. Simply writing a >> > value is safe in C89 and higher. >> >> Yeah, we could group those flags in a struct, but what's the point? >> > > This was one of two things I noticed in my previous patch on interrupts > and loops where I wasn't sure what the best practice in our code is. > > If we don't want to make this change, then would there be any objection to > me writing up a README describing the flags, and best practices in terms of > checking them in our code based on the current places we use them? If the > current approach will be unlikely to change in the future, then at least we > can document that the way I went about things is consistent with current > best practices so next time someone doesn't really wonder. > Attaching a first draft of a readme. Feedback welcome. I noticed further that we used to document signals and what they did with carious processes but that this was removed after 7.0, probably due to complexity reasons. > > >> >> regards, tom lane >> > > > -- > Best Regards, > Chris Travers > Head of Database > > Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com > Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin > > -- Best Regards, Chris Travers Head of Database Tel: +49 162 9037 210 | Skype: einhverfr | www.adjust.com Saarbrücker Straße 37a, 10405 Berlin
sig_doc_patch.patch
Description: Binary data
