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

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date
Msg-id 303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5433F95D@cuthbert.rcsinc.local
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-hackers-win32
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> The other way to go is to try to make the signal handlers thread safe.
> Do you know offhand how much code they touch? Since they're not called
> often, one could perhaps start with just wrapping all the code they
> touch (and that touches the same data they do) in critical sections.
> They're very lightweight and shouldn't have a noticeable performance
> impact, if it's possible to identify a limited number of locations to
> put it in there (as we certainly wouldn't want to bloat the code all
> over the place)

Don't forget that you have to add the volatile modifier to keep the
compiler from optimizing flags outside of loops, etc.  for variables
that could change inside a critical section.

Merlin

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date:

Previous
From: "Magnus Hagander"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Next
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Signals on Win32 (was RE: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch)