Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>(*) the process who kill the signal:
>> - put the signal in a *shared memory variable
>>pg_signal_queue* and
>>SetEvent(*shared_memory_event_variable*), then it is done;
>>
>>(*) the process who should receive the signal:
>> - the main thread of this process could be awakened by the
>>event from waiting status(like semop()) or
>>CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() actively; -- there is no other threads
>>of this process;
>>
>>Any show-stop reasons of not doing this?
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, that should work. With one shared memory segment and one event for
>each process, of course. The event can be the same one as is used now,
>only it has to be named so it can be accessed externally.
>
>
>
>
I assume that this will not break the use of pg_ctl to deliver
pseudo-signals. That would be a show-stopper.
cheers
andrew
