| 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: | 2008-04-22 06:16:55 |
| Message-ID: | 480D82D7.1090005@mansionfamily.plus.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> The problem is when winsock operations are interrupted by APCs.
>
> See:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-04/msg00013.php
>
Whoa! Indeed, that's a bit sucky because they really aren't documented
as interruptible.
In this case though I see not material problem with going back to APCs.
At the moment you
deliver to a pipe server thread with a pipe RPC. I can't see why you
cannot deliver to a
signal handling thread with the APC - the published {thread-id,function}
tuple does not need
to refer to the main thread for the process. This would de-synchronize
the delivery but make
a relatively small change since that background thread could deliver to
the main thread the
same way it does now.
If there were any desire to provide a MT-aware postmaster, the same
technique of masking
signals except on a signal thread might apply.
James
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-04-22 07:24:58 | Re: MERGE Specification |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-04-22 05:58:03 | Re: Can't start psql |