| From: | "Steve Tibbett" <stibbett(at)zim(dot)biz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again) |
| Date: | 2003-12-19 20:36:26 |
| Message-ID: | 546CD3100F4C0F42A30A94C0F2B349148FC76A@zimmail1.zim.zimismobile.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
>Maybe. I'm not quite convinced of that yet - we can SleepEx with
>a very small timeout, no? There must be a few critical places the
>call could be made, which would in effect just delay delivery of
>the signal for a very short time to some convenient sequence point.
FWIW that method gets my vote - calling SleepEx(0) in some critical
places; I believe that will yield the CPU but not wait any time (so if
nothing else wants the CPU and there aren't any procedures that need
calling then it amounts to a no-op).
Using a driver to do this is killing an ant with a hammer, no matter
that we find the ant somewhat irritating.. :)
- Steve
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2003-12-19 20:45:27 | Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again) |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-12-19 20:24:46 | Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again) |