On 08/09/2011 04:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> On 08/09/2011 12:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> No. As I pointed out upthread, the instant somebody changes the SIGALRM
>>> handler to a non-Postgres-aware one, you are already at risk of failure.
>>> Setting it back later is just locking the barn door after the horses
>>> left. Institutionalizing such a non-fix globally is even worse.
>> So what's your suggestion? I know what you said you'd like, but it
>> doesn't appear at all practical to me.
> [ shrug... ] Installing a perl module that mucks with the signal
> handlers is in the "don't do that" category. A kluge such as you
> suggest will not get it out of that category; all it will do is add
> useless overhead for people who are following the rules.
>
>
Well, knowing what a given module might do isn't always easy (see
below). I don't much like saying to people "I told you so", especially
when following the advice isn't necessarily straightforward.
After some experimentation, I found that, at least on my system, if LWP
uses Crypt::SSLeay for https requests then it sets an alarm handler, but
if instead it uses IO::Socket::SSL an alarm handler is not set. So the
answer to the OP's original problem is probably "make sure you have
IO::Socket::SSL installed and that Crypt::SSLeay is not installed."
cheers
andrew