From: | James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgkill on win32 |
Date: | 2008-04-21 05:02:33 |
Message-ID: | 480C1FE9.9070605@mansionfamily.plus.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Yes. We used to use APCs, but touching anything remotely related to
> Winsock from an APC is not supported... We had a lot of trouble with it
>
By implication you'd be doing socket'y stuff from the signal handler on
UNIX? Scary.
I was assuming it would be used to signal an event that would release
the main
thread and then do the real work there.
I suppose by implication you can't knock a thread out of select from the
APC?
Though, presumably, you could hand over the request to a waiting
application thread
and *that* would have full WinSock access.
I can help feeling that the eventselect mechanism is the one to use, not
the crappy
bsd select emulation.
> initially, and it took a long support case with Microsoft PSS to figure
> out what was broken, because this being unsupported was not properly
> documented.
>
Indeed. And its a very odd limitation given the way that APCs are used
with completion ports.
Did any sort of reference get written to the knowledge base for this, do
you know?
> It certainly is ;-) We could probably find something more efficient,
> but APCs are not the one.
>
The concern I have isn't so much that the mechanism might be a bit ugly,
but the synchronous
delivery and the scheduling gymnastics implied..
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-04-21 07:47:02 | Re: pgkill on win32 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-21 03:29:48 | Re: INSERT ... SELECT ... FOR SHARED? |