Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers-win32

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date
Msg-id 27837.1071673009@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch  ("Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
List pgsql-hackers-win32
"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> Well. There is one in the form of "make signal handlers thread-safe or
> defer non-threadsafe handlers".

As long as there is only one thread that can invoke signal handlers,
I don't see why you think they need to be "thread-safe".

It's already the case that we either handle execution of a signal
handler everywhere, or block delivery of the signal where we can't
handle it, because in the Unix model a signal handler can execute
anytime.

I'd be more concerned about whether the proposed implementation accurately
models signal mask processing (ie, temporary blocking of signal delivery).

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date:

Previous
From: "Magnus Hagander"
Date:
Subject: Pipes vs Events
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch