Magnus Hagander wrote:
>Considering the input we've received lately, it looks like the option of
>making signal handlers thread safe is going to be really difficult.
If we ever want to get to a fully threaded Postgres that will surely
have to be tackled. I agree it might mean major surgery, and we should
not hold up W32 for it.
>Likewise, finding "good places" to tuck in SleepEx calls is probaly not
>going to be easy.
Maybe. I'm not quite convinced of that yet - we can SleepEx with a very
small timeout, no? There must be a few critical places the call could be
made, which would in effect just delay delivery of the signal for a very
short time to some convenient sequence point.
>(I still think SleepEx and User APCs have to be a much
>faster and cleaner solutions than a hidden window - while rqeuiring the
>exact same thing which is a set of polling points)
>[snip] discussion of kernel driver solution
Now you're over my head ;-)
Thanks for all the good research.
In response to
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Steve Tibbett||Date: 2003-12-19 20:36:26|
|Subject: Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2003-12-19 19:45:56|
|Subject: Signals on Win32 (yet again)|