Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Now for the fun
> >>part (signals).
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Actually, no. I thought fork/exec would be a real mess (as did Tom),
> >but Claudio has done an excellent job of producing a minimal patch. The
> >work isn't done yet, but this small patch has taken us much closer, so I
> >assume signals will be even easier.
> >
>
>
>
> Well, it's speculation on both our parts :-). ISTM we'll need an
> explicit event loop to check the shmem (or whatever we use to simulate
> signals) every so often - maybe that will be easy, I don't know - I'm
> interested to see what turns up. (Of course, if we were threaded we'd
> just need a thread to watch for the event ...)

Have you looked at the CONNX signal code on the Win32 page:

http://momjian.postgresql.org/main/writings/pgsql/win32.html

It uses shared memory and events.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073