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

Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)

From: "Steve Tibbett" <stibbett(at)zim(dot)biz>
To: "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)
Date: 2003-12-19 20:36:26
Message-ID: 546CD3100F4C0F42A30A94C0F2B349148FC76A@zimmail1.zim.zimismobile.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
>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.

FWIW that method gets my vote - calling SleepEx(0) in some critical 
places; I believe that will yield the CPU but not wait any time (so if
nothing else wants the CPU and there aren't any procedures that need
calling then it amounts to a no-op).   

Using a driver to do this is killing an ant with a hammer, no matter
that we find the ant somewhat irritating.. :)

 - Steve



Responses

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2003-12-19 20:45:27
Subject: Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2003-12-19 20:24:46
Subject: Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)

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