| 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-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Win32 open items |
| Date: | 2004-10-30 19:58:52 |
| Message-ID: | 12353.1099166332@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
>> We don't need the cancelConnLock if this is done properly (at least,
>> assuming that storing a pointer is atomic, which seems reasonable).
> Anyway, consider this scenario. Thread A is the mainloop thread, Thread
> B is the thread that handles Ctrl-C. What if Thread B starts its run and
> starts reading off the pointer. Before it's done, it's pre-empted, and
> Thread A starts executing. Thread A does a free() on the memory pointed
> to by the pointer. When control goes back to Thread B, it will definitly
> die.
Good point. Never mind that claim then ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-10-30 20:51:01 | Re: Win32 open items |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-10-30 19:33:22 | Re: Win32 open items |