Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code
Date: 2005-06-01 16:14:05
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C759A@algol.sollentuna.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > Why not just use the pid in teh name, and have one segment
> per backend?
>
> Being used only for signals you mean? That might work.

That was my idea. We'll end up using three global namespace objects
(mutex+event+shared memory) instead of one (named pipe), but as we're
not talking thousands and thousands of backends in the normal case, this
shuold not be a problem I think. And if you do thousands and thousands
of backends, you'd better have the memory to support it anyway. I think
you'd hit other limits in the win32 port before you hit this one.

> I dislike fooling around with the contents of postmaster.pid,
> as that will inject platform-specific code into places where
> there is none now.

My thoughts exactly.

//Magnus

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2005-06-01 16:18:09 Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous Message Jochem van Dieten 2005-06-01 16:00:28 Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?