Re: [RFC,PATCH] SIGPIPE masking in local socket connections

On 6/2/09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Jeremy Kerr <jk@ozlabs.org> writes:
>  > The following patch changes psecure_write to be more like psecure_read -
>  > it only alters the signal mask if the connection is over SSL. It's only
>  > an RFC, as I'm not entirely sure about the reasoning behind blocking
>  > SIGPIPE for the non-SSL case - there may be other considerations here.
>
>
> The consideration is that the application fails completely on server
>  disconnect (because it gets SIGPIPE'd).  This was long ago deemed
>  unacceptable, and we aren't likely to change our opinion on that.
>
>  What disturbs me about your report is the suggestion that there are
>  paths through that code that fail to protect against SIGPIPE.  If so,
>  we need to fix that.

Slightly OT, but why are we not using MSG_NOSIGNAL / SO_NOSIGPIPE
on OS'es that support them?  I guess significant portion of userbase
has at least one of them available...

Thus avoiding 2 syscalls per operation plus potential locking issues.

-- 
marko