From: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code |
Date: | 2005-05-27 03:10:26 |
Message-ID: | d7636u$eph$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
""Magnus Hagander"" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes
>
> 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.
>
Yes, the shared memory segment size could be controlled by MaxBackends.
> It would do away with the thread, certainly. But it's not quite as
> simple as you outline above - you'll need to replace the critical
> section locking (easy, lightweight) with a mutex or something like that
> (more complex, more heavy weight). But probably named pipes is more
> heavy, yes.
>
Yes, use mutex.
> You'll also need some way of delivering the feedback, I think - kill(0)
> is supposed to tell you if there is a live process in th eother end, so
> you can't just throw the signal out and hope for the best.
>
To simulate kill(0) we can test the process handle, just like we handle
waitpid().
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-05-27 03:22:10 | Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-27 03:09:28 | Re: A 2 phase commit weirdness |