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

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date
Msg-id 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE2A6948@algol.sollentuna.se
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
List pgsql-hackers-win32
> Having read through this massive thread, I concluded the
> CONNX signal stuff is the way to go.  Where there any Win32
> TODO items in there?  I didn't see any.

Well. There is one in the form of "make signal handlers thread-safe or
defer non-threadsafe handlers".
But before we're committed down that path, I think we need someone with
really good knowledge in those signal handlers to comment on wether this
sounsd reasonable at all, or if it iwll be too much work. I know I don't
have that knowledge, and from what I read we've had nobody speak up yet.

Basically, we want signal handlers to run on a separate thread from the
main processing.


//Magnus

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq.dll for win32 always using ssl
Next
From: "Magnus Hagander"
Date:
Subject: Pipes vs Events