Re: pqsignal - to be or (in this case) not to be

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: pqsignal - to be or (in this case) not to be
Date: 2004-02-04 22:24:16
Message-ID: 303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5434AA7A@cuthbert.rcsinc.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I guess I've spent too much time listening to people, including
myself,
> assuming how things work without actually testing it.
>
> It turns out that both select() and recv() (and thus, probably send()
as
> well) put the thread in alertable state. This means that while we are
in
> a blocking select() or recv(), *our signals will be delivered using an
> APC*.

Ha! That makes things easy then, doesn't it!

As for the polling, adding a poll to one or two strategic plaes (like
the I/O subsystem) should cover 99% of the reasonable cases...

Merlin

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-02-04 23:28:59 Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2004-02-04 22:17:21 pqsignal - to be or (in this case) not to be