Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_usleep

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_usleep
Date: 2003-12-31 14:12:43
Message-ID: 1530.24.211.141.25.1072879963.squirrel@www.dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32pgsql-patches
Claudio Natoli said:
>
>
>> patch + new file attached. Haven't tested on Windows, but
>> should be fine.
>
> Would be, except for a small typo (conditional operator has an
> additional : instead of a ?).

Darnit. please fix when applying.

> Also, we might want to change to SleepEx,
> depending on how we eventually get signals implemented, but that's a
> story for another day.
>

Yes. If we use a separate thread to catch signal events then only calls in
that thread would need to use SleepEx, no? Anyway, as you say if necessary
it can be adjusted later.

> This, + the pipe() patch from a couple days ago, means we can just
> about tick off the "Problems with select()" item on the Win32 TODO list
> :-)
>

That was the intention :-)

cheers

andrew





In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: My DejaDate: 2004-01-02 02:48:14
Subject: Re: pgAdmin crashes when client_min_messages is
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-12-31 05:17:13
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Claudio NatoliDate: 2004-01-06 22:04:46
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization
Previous:From: Claudio NatoliDate: 2003-12-31 02:33:09
Subject: Re: pg_usleep

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group