From: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Magnus Hagander' <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch for select and APC on win32 |
Date: | 2004-03-23 13:13:24 |
Message-ID: | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B55F3AC@harris.memetrics.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> > > Here's a patch implementing the "thread method" to
> > workaround the bug
> > > with socket calls in signal handlers. See details in mail to
> > > pgsql-hackers-win32 a couple of minutes ago.
> >
> > Looks ok, but wouldn't it be better placed in pgstat.c?
>
> Actually, I don't think so. I considered it, and chose to put it in
> postmaster.c for the following reason:
>
> The functon pgstat_beterm itself is *not* the problem. In theory, it can
> be called from places that are not signal handlers (sure, it's not done
> today I think, but internal-API-wise, it could). That goes against
> putting the fix ther.
Sure, like I said, my 2c. Just looks a little out of place. Understand point
on API, but think it is clear that this isn't a win32 replacement for
pgstat_beterm, but a win32 replacement for pgstat_beterm *called from a
signal handler* (perhaps a function name change would make it this clearer).
In any case, not fussed.
What I am wondering about now, is where else we need to change? AFAICS,
there is (at least?) one signal handler that performs sockets ops, namely
Async_NotifyHandler.
Cheers,
Claudio
---
Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see
<a
href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.memetrics.com/em
ailpolicy.html</a>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-03-23 13:16:05 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 open patch for held unlink |
Previous Message | Karel Zak | 2004-03-23 10:10:52 | Re: pstrndup() |