| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers-win32 <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
| Date: | 2003-12-17 15:35:52 |
| Message-ID: | 28144.1071675352@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I see for the CONNX driver code that handles signal masking:
Aren't these functions in themselves totally thread-unsafe?
That wouldn't matter in a non-thread-based implementation, but if you
are going to rely on a second thread to handle signal processing, all
of the code that manipulates the private state of the signal emulation
had better be thread-safe.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2003-12-17 15:52:51 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-17 15:30:11 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |