| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pqsignal - to be or (in this case) not to be |
| Date: | 2004-02-04 22:24:16 |
| Message-ID: | 303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5434AA7A@cuthbert.rcsinc.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I guess I've spent too much time listening to people, including
myself,
> assuming how things work without actually testing it.
>
> It turns out that both select() and recv() (and thus, probably send()
as
> well) put the thread in alertable state. This means that while we are
in
> a blocking select() or recv(), *our signals will be delivered using an
> APC*.
Ha! That makes things easy then, doesn't it!
As for the polling, adding a poll to one or two strategic plaes (like
the I/O subsystem) should cover 99% of the reasonable cases...
Merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-04 23:28:59 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-02-04 22:17:21 | pqsignal - to be or (in this case) not to be |