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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,"pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date: 2003-12-17 16:45:44
Message-ID: 4351.1071679544@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
>>> An option would be to SuspendThread() on the main thread, which 
>>> freezes it completely durnig the execution of the signal. If 
>>> necessary, are we safe against that?
>>
>> Why would that be a problem?

> In a nutshell: If the main thread holds a lock on something we need
> (such as the heap), we just shot ourselves in the foot.

Hmm.  Sounds like SuspendThread is not a workable option at all.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2003-12-17 18:08:50
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2003-12-17 16:36:19
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

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