From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
        Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        Eric Cyr <eric.cyr@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SIGTTIN / SIGTTOU handling (was Re: BUG #15449)
In-reply-to: <20181117183500.uiswm6r2p6aw7uux@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20181117183500.uiswm6r2p6aw7uux@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Sat, 17 Nov 2018 15:35:00 -0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <28164.1542481884.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 14:11:24 -0500
Message-ID: <28166.1542481884@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2018-Nov-17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Given the lack of complaints, there's probably no need for back-patch,
>> but that's what I'd propose in HEAD to make this saner.

> Hmm, but the bug was reported on pg10 ... why wouldn't we backpatch this
> fix there?

The complaint was about SIGPIPE handling (or lack of it).  I do intend
to back-patch the fix for that.  This is just a side issue that came
up in that thread.

			regards, tom lane