| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
| Date: | 2003-12-16 20:20:49 |
| Message-ID: | 303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5434AA2E@cuthbert.rcsinc.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Dann Corbit wrote:
> By using events you don't have to poll at all. You are waiting on the
> event. A signal fires the event. It is also possible to add as many
> signal types as you like, even beyond the standard UNIX batch if it
> suits your fancy.
Right: can we assume that all signals can be handled by a 'listener'
thread (listening with WaitForSingleObject) without having to notify the
main backend thread that it is signal time (especially for notifications
coming from the postmaster)?
That is the point we are unclear on and the last several posts were
discussing possibilities if the answer to that question was 'no'.
Merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-12-16 20:20:53 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-12-16 20:20:38 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |