""Magnus Hagander"" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes
> Yeah, that should work. With one shared memory segment and one event for
> each process, of course. The event can be the same one as is used now,
> only it has to be named so it can be accessed externally.
Yes, the shared memory segment size could be controlled by MaxBackends.
> It would do away with the thread, certainly. But it's not quite as
> simple as you outline above - you'll need to replace the critical
> section locking (easy, lightweight) with a mutex or something like that
> (more complex, more heavy weight). But probably named pipes is more
> heavy, yes.
Yes, use mutex.
> You'll also need some way of delivering the feedback, I think - kill(0)
> is supposed to tell you if there is a live process in th eother end, so
> you can't just throw the signal out and hope for the best.
To simulate kill(0) we can test the process handle, just like we handle
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Qingqing Zhou||Date: 2005-05-27 03:22:10|
|Subject: Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-05-27 03:09:28|
|Subject: Re: A 2 phase commit weirdness |