Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code
Date
Msg-id 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C759A@algol.sollentuna.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Can we simplify win32 threading code  ("Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > Why not just use the pid in teh name, and have one segment
> per backend?
>
> Being used only for signals you mean?  That might work.

That was my idea. We'll end up using three global namespace objects
(mutex+event+shared memory) instead of one (named pipe), but as we're
not talking thousands and thousands of backends in the normal case, this
shuold not be a problem I think. And if you do thousands and thousands
of backends, you'd better have the memory to support it anyway. I think
you'd hit other limits in the win32 port before you hit this one.


> I dislike fooling around with the contents of postmaster.pid,
> as that will inject platform-specific code into places where
> there is none now.

My thoughts exactly.


//Magnus


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jochem van Dieten
Date:
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?