"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
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
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-12-17 15:30:11|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2003-12-17 12:47:53|
|Subject: Pipes vs Events|