James Mansion wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > The problem is when winsock operations are interrupted by APCs. > > > > See: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-04/msg00013.php > > > Whoa! Indeed, that's a bit sucky because they really aren't > documented as interruptible. > > In this case though I see not material problem with going back to > APCs. At the moment you > deliver to a pipe server thread with a pipe RPC. I can't see why you > cannot deliver to a > signal handling thread with the APC - the published > {thread-id,function} tuple does not need > to refer to the main thread for the process. This would > de-synchronize the delivery but make > a relatively small change since that background thread could deliver > to the main thread the > same way it does now.
Good point. I see no reason not to be able to do that, agreed. Once we accepted using a second thread for it, that opportunity is certainly there. You interested in trying to code up a patch to verify that? ;) > If there were any desire to provide a MT-aware postmaster, the same > technique of masking > signals except on a signal thread might apply. Define MT-aware :-) It's certainly MT-aware in the fact that it's already MT... But there is no interest in making the actual backends launch as threads in the postmaster - at least not currently. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers