Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code
Date: 2005-05-26 14:23:46
Message-ID: 4295DBF2.7030006@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander wrote:

>>(*) the process who kill the signal:
>> - put the signal in a *shared memory variable
>>pg_signal_queue* and
>>SetEvent(*shared_memory_event_variable*), then it is done;
>>
>>(*) the process who should receive the signal:
>> - the main thread of this process could be awakened by the
>>event from waiting status(like semop()) or
>>CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() actively; -- there is no other threads
>>of this process;
>>
>>Any show-stop reasons of not doing this?
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, that should work. With one shared memory segment and one event for
>each process, of course. The event can be the same one as is used now,
>only it has to be named so it can be accessed externally.
>
>
>
>

I assume that this will not break the use of pg_ctl to deliver
pseudo-signals. That would be a show-stopper.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2005-05-26 14:25:23 Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code
Previous Message Jonah H. Harris 2005-05-26 14:15:07 Re: soundex and metaphone