| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PQinSend question |
| Date: | 2004-02-10 15:21:42 |
| Message-ID: | 200402101521.i1AFLg520255@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> writes:
> >> return false; /* No threading, so we can't be in send() */
>
> > Why not? Signal delivery can interrupt send() even with single-threaded
> > users.
>
> It looks like Bruce left the old logic in place for unthreaded
> implementations: we just replace the signal handler during every send().
> So there's no need for PQinSend() to do anything useful.
I have updated the CVS comments to more clearly explain this.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rodrigo | 2004-02-10 15:23:06 | Re: MS SQL features for new version |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-02-10 15:20:59 | Re: PQinSend question |