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

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,"pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date: 2003-12-17 14:56:49
Message-ID: 27837.1071673009@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> Well. There is one in the form of "make signal handlers thread-safe or
> defer non-threadsafe handlers".

As long as there is only one thread that can invoke signal handlers,
I don't see why you think they need to be "thread-safe".

It's already the case that we either handle execution of a signal
handler everywhere, or block delivery of the signal where we can't
handle it, because in the Unix model a signal handler can execute
anytime.

I'd be more concerned about whether the proposed implementation accurately
models signal mask processing (ie, temporary blocking of signal delivery).

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-12-17 15:30:11
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2003-12-17 12:47:53
Subject: Pipes vs Events

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