Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-08-30 15:28:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No no no, I'm proposing to remove the above-quoted lines and the configure
>> test. sig_atomic_t is required by C89; there is no reason anymore to
>> cope with it not being provided by .
> Ok, that works for me. You seemed
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-08-30 14:59:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> HAVE_SIG_ATOMIC_T is a debatable case, in that the only thing we're
>> doing with it is c.h's
>>
>> /* sig_atomic_t is required by ANSI C, but may be missing on old platforms */
>> #ifndef HAVE_SIG_ATOMIC_T
>> typedef int si
On 2015-08-30 15:28:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> No no no, I'm proposing to remove the above-quoted lines and the configure
> test. sig_atomic_t is required by C89; there is no reason anymore to
> cope with it not being provided by .
Ok, that works for me. You seemed to be a bit more doubtful abou
Hi,
On 2015-08-30 14:59:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 1. No buildfarm member in the available history (going back to 2012-01-01)
> has ever reported not having the POSIX signal interface, nor sig_atomic_t.
> (We don't run the POSIX-signals check on Windows systems, though.)
We, afaik, don't use any
A question in another project's mailing list prompted me to investigate
whether our support for non-POSIX signals is actually still of any value.
I grepped through the buildfarm server's configure-stage reports, and
found that:
1. No buildfarm member in the available history (going back to 2012-01
