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

Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code

From: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code
Date: 2005-06-02 02:07:32
Message-ID: d7lpot$ha2$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
""Magnus Hagander"" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
> >  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,
> > as that will inject platform-specific code into places where
> > there is none now.
> My thoughts exactly.

Ok, understood. In this way, that's more like the real Unix signals ...


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Oliver JowettDate: 2005-06-02 02:13:38
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2005-06-02 01:54:51
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group