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

Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code
Date: 2005-06-01 16:14:05
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C759A@algol.sollentuna.se (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > Why not just use the pid in teh name, and have one segment 
> per backend?
> 
> Being used only for signals you mean?  That might work.

That was my idea. We'll end up using three global namespace objects
(mutex+event+shared memory) instead of one (named pipe), but as we're
not talking thousands and thousands of backends in the normal case, this
shuold not be a problem I think. And if you do thousands and thousands
of backends, you'd better have the memory to support it anyway. I think
you'd hit other limits in the win32 port before you hit this one.


> I dislike fooling around with the contents of postmaster.pid, 
> as that will inject platform-specific code into places where 
> there is none now.

My thoughts exactly.


//Magnus

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2005-06-01 16:18:09
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous:From: Jochem van DietenDate: 2005-06-01 16:00:28
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

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