Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers-win32 <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date: 2003-12-17 15:35:52
Message-ID: 28144.1071675352@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I see for the CONNX driver code that handles signal masking:

Aren't these functions in themselves totally thread-unsafe?

That wouldn't matter in a non-thread-based implementation, but if you
are going to rely on a second thread to handle signal processing, all
of the code that manipulates the private state of the signal emulation
had better be thread-safe.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2003-12-17 15:52:51 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-12-17 15:30:11 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch