From: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: parallel restore vs. windows |
Date: | 2008-12-09 03:32:26 |
Message-ID: | 493DE6CA.70407@esilo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> HANDLE h = (HANDLE)_beginthreadex(NULL, 0, thread_start, arg, 0, NULL);
>
> This didn't give me any more joy, unfortunately. But you're right, I
> should be using it.
>
Are these threads sharing memory, intentionally or by mistake?
>> if(h)
>> CloseHandle(h);
>
> Umm, even if I wait on the handle using waitForMultipleObjects() ?
>
I was only trying to demonstrate that the value returned by _beginthread can be
managed/closed just like any other win32 HANDLE.
> I am terminating the thread by returning from the thread function. I
> understand this is the recommended way.
I didn't see a CloseHandle on ret_child anywhere. The HANDLE still exists after
the thread exists, you still have to call CloseHandle.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-12-09 03:48:38 | Re: parallel restore vs. windows |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-12-09 03:01:17 | Re: parallel restore vs. windows |