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

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

From: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date: 2003-12-17 16:09:15
Message-ID: 303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5433F95B@cuthbert.rcsinc.local (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
Tom Lane wrote:
> > An option would be to SuspendThread() on the main thread, which
> > it completely durnig the execution of the signal. If necessary, are
> > safe against that? (Basically, SuspendThread() will suspend a thread
> > even if it's inside a kernel call.
> Why would that be a problem?

As I understand it, it isn't as long as the backend has only one
operating thread (except for the signal handling thread).  


pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2003-12-17 16:36:19
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-12-17 15:56:05
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group