| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cygwin cleanup |
| Date: | 2022-08-04 05:23:09 |
| Message-ID: | 3338960.1659590589@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It may be madness to try to work around this, but I wonder if we could
> use a static local variable that we update with atomic compare
> exhange, inside PG_SIGNAL_HANDLER_ENTRY(), and
> PG_SIGNAL_HANDLER_EXIT() macros that do nothing on every other system.
> On entry, if you can do 0->1 it means you are allowed to run the
> function. If it's non-zero, set n->n+1 and return immediately: signal
> blocked, but queued for later. On exit, you CAS n->0. If n was > 1,
> then you have to jump back to the top and run the function body again.
And ... we're expending all this effort for what exactly?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-08-04 05:37:59 | Re: support for SSE2 intrinsics |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-08-04 05:19:47 | Re: Cygwin cleanup |