| From: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Magnus Hagander' <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers-win32 <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Win32 signal code - first try |
| Date: | 2004-01-12 02:51:46 |
| Message-ID: | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B55F24F@harris.memetrics.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> But if we are going to create a separate thread, why not do the
> ReadFile() in the new thread as well? That will make the listening part
> completely immune to any "lockups" from the client side as well (say the
> client locking up for some reason *before* sending the signal number.
> This should normally not happen, and since it's really a single API call
> I have a hard time seing how, but if we're gonig to take the step of
> creating a separate thread, let's go all the way).
Sure, but like you say, having this "lockup" is hard to imagine...
Cheers,
Claudio
---
Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see
<a
href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.memetrics.com/em
ailpolicy.html</a>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2004-01-12 14:34:11 | Re: Win32 signal code - first try |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-01-11 13:05:41 | Re: Win32 signal code - first try |