Re: pqsignal - to be or (in this case) not to be

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
Cc: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pqsignal - to be or (in this case) not to be
Date: 2004-02-04 23:31:07
Message-ID: 22802.1075937467@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32

"Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> writes:
> As for the polling, adding a poll to one or two strategic plaes (like
> the I/O subsystem) should cover 99% of the reasonable cases...

Put it into the macro that checks for query cancel.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2004-02-04 23:34:08 Re: pqsignal - to be or (in this case) not to be
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-02-04 23:28:59 Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint