Handle EPIPE more sanely when we close a pipe reading from a program.

Handle EPIPE more sanely when we close a pipe reading from a program.

Previously, any program launched by COPY TO/FROM PROGRAM inherited the
server's setting of SIGPIPE handling, i.e. SIG_IGN.  Hence, if we were
doing COPY FROM PROGRAM and closed the pipe early, the child process
would see EPIPE on its output file and typically would treat that as
a fatal error, in turn causing the COPY to report error.  Similarly,
one could get a failure report from a query that didn't read all of
the output from a contrib/file_fdw foreign table that uses file_fdw's
PROGRAM option.

To fix, ensure that child programs inherit SIG_DFL not SIG_IGN processing
of SIGPIPE.  This seems like an all-around better situation since if
the called program wants some non-default treatment of SIGPIPE, it would
expect to have to set that up for itself.  Then in COPY, if it's COPY
FROM PROGRAM and we stop reading short of detecting EOF, treat a SIGPIPE
exit from the called program as a non-error condition.  This still allows
us to report an error for any case where the called program gets SIGPIPE
on some other file descriptor.

As coded, we won't report a SIGPIPE if we stop reading as a result of
seeing an in-band EOF marker (e.g. COPY BINARY EOF marker).  It's
somewhat debatable whether we should complain if the called program
continues to transmit data after an EOF marker.  However, it seems like
we should avoid throwing error in any questionable cases, especially in a
back-patched fix, and anyway it would take additional code to make such
an error get reported consistently.

Back-patch to v10.  We could go further back, since COPY FROM PROGRAM
has been around awhile, but AFAICS the only way to reach this situation
using core or contrib is via file_fdw, which has only supported PROGRAM
sources since v10.  The COPY statement per se has no feature whereby
it'd stop reading without having hit EOF or an error already.  Therefore,
I don't see any upside to back-patching further that'd outweigh the
risk of complaints about behavioral change.

Per bug #15449 from Eric Cyr.

Patch by me, review by Etsuro Fujita and Kyotaro Horiguchi

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/15449-1cf737dd5929450e@postgresql.org