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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>,"Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
Cc: "Steve Tibbett" <stibbett(at)zim(dot)biz>,"pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date: 2003-12-16 18:52:32
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
Arrgh - hit send too fast!

>BTW, for the record, here is a quick view of how to make 
>actual interrupting calls into another thread. I think you can 
>see why I do't think that's a really good option..
>When calling the signal, run:
save away IP
change IP of context to a *known invalid address*

this means that as soon as the main thread gets back into userspace, it

Then you have to wrap the entire backend in a
  backend goes here

Then in the exception handler, you have to check that it was the correct
ACCESS_VIOLATION, do the signal handler, and then tell the exception
handler to continue working where it last was

Downside? This one does *not* fire if the thread is "stuck" in a kernel
call such as.. Yes. WaitForSingleObject(), etc - just the sam eones that
the other solution requires.

This is messy... :-)


pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2003-12-16 18:55:45
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2003-12-16 18:48:57
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

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