| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
| Date: | 2003-12-17 14:56:49 |
| Message-ID: | 27837.1071673009@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> Well. There is one in the form of "make signal handlers thread-safe or
> defer non-threadsafe handlers".
As long as there is only one thread that can invoke signal handlers,
I don't see why you think they need to be "thread-safe".
It's already the case that we either handle execution of a signal
handler everywhere, or block delivery of the signal where we can't
handle it, because in the Unix model a signal handler can execute
anytime.
I'd be more concerned about whether the proposed implementation accurately
models signal mask processing (ie, temporary blocking of signal delivery).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-17 15:30:11 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2003-12-17 12:47:53 | Pipes vs Events |