From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
Date: | 2003-12-18 14:27:58 |
Message-ID: | 303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5433F95D@cuthbert.rcsinc.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> The other way to go is to try to make the signal handlers thread safe.
> Do you know offhand how much code they touch? Since they're not called
> often, one could perhaps start with just wrapping all the code they
> touch (and that touches the same data they do) in critical sections.
> They're very lightweight and shouldn't have a noticeable performance
> impact, if it's possible to identify a limited number of locations to
> put it in there (as we certainly wouldn't want to bloat the code all
> over the place)
Don't forget that you have to add the volatile modifier to keep the
compiler from optimizing flags outside of loops, etc. for variables
that could change inside a critical section.
Merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2003-12-18 18:09:53 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2003-12-17 18:08:50 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |