| 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 16:45:44 |
| Message-ID: | 4351.1071679544@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:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Why would that be a problem?
> In a nutshell: If the main thread holds a lock on something we need
> (such as the heap), we just shot ourselves in the foot.
Hmm. Sounds like SuspendThread is not a workable option at all.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2003-12-17 18:08:50 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2003-12-17 16:36:19 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |