| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
| Date: | 2003-12-17 16:09:15 |
| Message-ID: | 303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5433F95B@cuthbert.rcsinc.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Tom Lane wrote:
> > An option would be to SuspendThread() on the main thread, which
freezes
> > it completely durnig the execution of the signal. If necessary, are
we
> > safe against that? (Basically, SuspendThread() will suspend a thread
> > even if it's inside a kernel call.
>
> Why would that be a problem?
As I understand it, it isn't as long as the backend has only one
operating thread (except for the signal handling thread).
Merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2003-12-17 16:36:19 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-17 15:56:05 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |