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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

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