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

Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)

From: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)
Date: 2003-12-19 20:45:27
Message-ID: 303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5434AA37@cuthbert.rcsinc.local (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Maybe. I'm not quite convinced of that yet - we can SleepEx with a
> small timeout, no? There must be a few critical places the call could
> made, which would in effect just delay delivery of the signal for a
> short time to some convenient sequence point.

Actually, you don't need any timeout at all.
WaitForSingleObject(INFINITE) keeps on running if the event object is
kept signaled, so performance is not an issue.  We can use 'manual'
events to keep the Event object open all the time unless explicitly
turned off via a signal thread.

Implementation difficulties aside, what is more attractive from an
aesthetic standpoint?  Releasing (and supporting) a 100 line binary
kernel driver for win32 or adding polling to the source in all the key


pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Joseph S. Barrera IIIDate: 2003-12-19 20:48:23
Subject: Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)
Previous:From: Steve TibbettDate: 2003-12-19 20:36:26
Subject: Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)

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