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

Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers-win32 <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)
Date: 2003-12-19 20:24:46
Message-ID: 3FE35E8E.7070804@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
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


In response to

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Steve TibbettDate: 2003-12-19 20:36:26
Subject: Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2003-12-19 19:45:56
Subject: Signals on Win32 (yet again)

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