From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers-win32 <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Singnals code (not just win32 specific) |
Date: | 2004-01-22 13:34:35 |
Message-ID: | 400FD16B.7050502@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Hello!
>
> The backend signals code today uses pqsignal() instead of signal() at
> all places. But it uses kill() and sigsetmask() (through the macro
> PG_SETMASK) directly.
>
> I propose to change this to pqkill() and pqsigsetmask(). In pqsignal.h,
> these would be #define:d back to kill() and setsigmask() for the normal
> method, but would be functions on win32.
Sounds logical and more consistent than it is now.
While talking about it, I think our usage of signals is way overloaded
anyway. Any ideas how to replace it all with just one signal and a
regular message queue?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-01-22 14:20:58 | Re: cache control? |
Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-01-22 12:55:53 | Dynamic modules and standard naming practice |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2004-01-22 14:59:51 | What's left? |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-01-22 09:54:10 | Singnals code (not just win32 specific) |