| From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers-win32 <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Singnals code (not just win32 specific) | 
| Date: | 2004-01-22 13:34:35 | 
| Message-ID: | 400FD16B.7050502@Yahoo.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 | 
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> The backend signals code today uses pqsignal() instead of signal() at
> all places. But it uses kill() and sigsetmask() (through the macro
> PG_SETMASK) directly.
> 
> I propose to change this to pqkill() and pqsigsetmask(). In pqsignal.h,
> these would be #define:d back to kill() and setsigmask() for the normal
> method, but would be functions on win32.
Sounds logical and more consistent than it is now.
While talking about it, I think our usage of signals is way overloaded 
anyway. Any ideas how to replace it all with just one signal and a 
regular message queue?
Jan
-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-01-22 14:20:58 | Re: cache control? | 
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-01-22 12:55:53 | Dynamic modules and standard naming practice | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2004-01-22 14:59:51 | What's left? | 
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-01-22 09:54:10 | Singnals code (not just win32 specific) |