Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)

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)
>
>

I agree.

>[snip] discussion of kernel driver solution
>
>

Now you're over my head ;-)

Thanks for all the good research.

cheers

andrew