On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu> writes:
> > "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote
> >> Redmond crowd should be able to figure out that recycling process IDs
> >> instantly would be a stupid idea...)
> > Can you explain more of this? IMHO, if we rely on feature like this, the
> > difference is unstable-every-day vs. unstable-every-year.
> The mere existence of the kill() primitive should bring to mind reasons
> why it's a bad idea.
CreateProcess - "The process is assigned a process identifier. The
identifier is valid until the process terminates. It can be used to
identify the process, or specified in the OpenProcess function to open
a handle to the process. The initial thread in the process is also
assigned a thread identifier. ..."
TerminateProcess - "Terminates the specified process and all of its
threads."
TerminateProcess takes a HANDLE, not a process identifier. Yes, they
provide the "kill" primitive, but only as a compatibility measure. A
"good" Windows process, should maintain a HANDLE to the process, and
kill the process using the HANDLE. This way, there is no race. The
HANDLE is also how you wait for the process to terminate normally.
I prefer the "Redmond" way, in that I find UNIX's use of integer
identifiers to be encouraging of race conditions. UNIX requires hacks
like minimizing PID reuse, because UNIX is the one that is broken. :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness
bindthem...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
