From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers-win32 <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again) |
Date: | 2003-12-19 20:24:46 |
Message-ID: | 3FE35E8E.7070804@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
>Considering the input we've received lately, it looks like the option of
>making signal handlers thread safe is going to be really difficult.
>
>
:-(
If we ever want to get to a fully threaded Postgres that will surely
have to be tackled. I agree it might mean major surgery, and we should
not hold up W32 for it.
>Likewise, finding "good places" to tuck in SleepEx calls is probaly not
>going to be easy.
>
Maybe. I'm not quite convinced of that yet - we can SleepEx with a very
small timeout, no? There must be a few critical places the call could be
made, which would in effect just delay delivery of the signal for a very
short time to some convenient sequence point.
>(I still think SleepEx and User APCs have to be a much
>faster and cleaner solutions than a hidden window - while rqeuiring the
>exact same thing which is a set of polling points)
>
>
I agree.
>[snip] discussion of kernel driver solution
>
>
Now you're over my head ;-)
Thanks for all the good research.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Tibbett | 2003-12-19 20:36:26 | Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again) |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2003-12-19 19:45:56 | Signals on Win32 (yet again) |