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

Re: Win32 signal code - first try

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers-win32 <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Win32 signal code - first try
Date: 2004-01-08 23:38:00
Message-ID: 3FFDE9D8.5020408@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32

Magnus Hagander wrote:

>I think we agreed that we'd go with the polling method if it worked well
>enough, so we don't need a kernel driver. If that doesn't work out, the
>kernel driver would be the fallback method. 
>

I think your code has almost certainly ruled out any necessity for a 
kernel mode driver.

>
>Hmm. Depending on how often we need to poll (meaning how often we need
>to deliver signals), perhaps we can go with the WFSOEx method anyway.
>The code would be slightly easier:
>I've attached a version that uses this one instead.
>
>(You'd probably move the WaitFor()... call into the #define as well)
>
>Looking at this code, I'm thinking we can probably do away with the
>critical section alltogether. All that code now executes on the main
>thread. Does this seem correct?
>
>  
>

I understood your first version better than I understand this one. What 
calls __pg_poll_signals()? As I understand the first version, we 
wouldn't need to put any polling calls into the main thread code - the 
signal detector would just queue a call to pg_signal_apc() on the main 
thread as needed, which would in turn do some cleanup and call the 
signal handler. That seems to me to be *very* clean and nice. Am I 
missing something? (As you can no doubt tell, IANAWP :-) )

BTW, well done!

cheers

andrew


In response to

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Claudio NatoliDate: 2004-01-09 00:14:18
Subject: Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2004-01-08 22:53:20
Subject: Re: Win32 signal code - first try

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