James Mansion wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > You interested in trying to code up a patch to verify that? ;)
> >
> >
> Practical reality says that I won't get to this before the next
> version of Windows is released.
> I don't want to promise something I can't deliver.
:-)
If you want to th
Magnus Hagander wrote:
You interested in trying to code up a patch to verify that? ;)
Practical reality says that I won't get to this before the next version
of Windows is released.
I don't want to promise something I can't deliver.
If there were any desire to provide a MT-aware postmaster,
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 interrupti
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:47:02AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Uh, sorry, got that explained backwards.
> > The problem is when winsock operations are interrupted by APCs.
> >
> > See:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-04/msg00013.ph
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:47:02AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Uh, sorry, got that explained backwards.
> The problem is when winsock operations are interrupted by APCs.
>
> See:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-04/msg00013.php
WRT this bit:
> (1) carries a big prob
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 materi
James Mansion wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Yes. We used to use APCs, but touching anything remotely related to
> > Winsock from an APC is not supported... We had a lot of trouble
> > with it
> By implication you'd be doing socket'y stuff from the signal handler
> on UNIX? Scary.
Uh, sorry,
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Yes. We used to use APCs, but touching anything remotely related to
Winsock from an APC is not supported... We had a lot of trouble with it
By implication you'd be doing socket'y stuff from the signal handler on
UNIX? Scary.
I was assuming it would be used to signal an
James Mansion wrote:
> I'm wondering if the mechanism used for sending signals between
> postmaster processes on Win32 is much more heavyweight that is
> necessary.
>
> Is there a reason not to call OpenThread on the target postmaster's
> thread id, and then use QueueUserAPC to execute a 'signal
I'm wondering if the mechanism used for sending signals between
postmaster processes on Win32 is much more heavyweight that is necessary.
Is there a reason not to call OpenThread on the target postmaster's
thread id, and then use QueueUserAPC to execute a 'signal handler'
method on it? (Or Te
10 matches
Mail list logo
