On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:56 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I don't think that your analysis here is correct. The sigdelset call > > is manipulating BlockSig, and the subsequent PG_SETMASK call is > > working with UnblockSig, so it doesn't make sense to view one as a > > preparatory step for the other. > > That SETMASK call will certainly unblock SIGQUIT, so I don't see what > your point is.
I can't figure out if you're trolling me here or what. It's true that the PG_SETMASK() call will certainly unblock SIGQUIT, but that would also be true if the sigdelset() call were absent. > Anyway, the bottom line is that that code's been like > that for a decade or two without complaints, so I'm disinclined to > mess with it on the strength of nothing much. Really? Have you reversed your policy of wanting the comments to accurately describe what the code does? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
