""Magnus Hagander"" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
> >  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.
>

Ok, understood. In this way, that's more like the real Unix signals ...

Regards,
Qingqing

In response to

• Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code at 2005-06-01 16:14:05 from Magnus Hagander

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Oliver Jowett	Date: 2005-06-02 02:13:38
	Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous:	From: Luke Lonergan	Date: 2005-06-02 01:54:51
	Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?