On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 08:21:08AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 8:15 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:08:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > I wonder why we redefine those values?
>>
>> I wondered the same. Those redefines have been there since commit 5049196,
>> but I haven't been able to find any real discussion in the archives about
>> it. Maybe I will bug Magnus about it sometime, in case he happens to
>> remember the reason.
>
> My guess would be: perhaps some ancient version of MinGW didn't define
> them? They're defined by MinGW and native signal.h now and they have
> the same values, so we should remove them I think.
Okay. If nothing else, it'd be interesting to see what the buildfarm
thinks.
> Assertion failed: 0, file ../src/port/pqsignal.c, line 147
>
> Could be due to calling native signal() with a signal number other
> than the 6 values required to work by the C standard?
Looking closer, that probably makes more sense than my SIG_ERR redefinition
theory. If that assertion is getting hit, that means signal() _is_
returning SIG_ERR (either the system one or our redefined version), and it
looks like it's pretty common to use -1 for SIG_ERR. That'd only affect
Windows frontend programs, but it still sounds scary. I'll try getting
more details about the error with some custom cfbot runs.
--
nathan
