Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
- From: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
- To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:09:15 -0500
- Message-id: <303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5433F95B(at)cuthbert(dot)rcsinc(dot)local>
Tom Lane wrote: > > An option would be to SuspendThread() on the main thread, which freezes > > it completely durnig the execution of the signal. If necessary, are we > > safe against that? (Basically, SuspendThread() will suspend a thread > > even if it's inside a kernel call. > > Why would that be a problem? As I understand it, it isn't as long as the backend has only one operating thread (except for the signal handling thread). Merlin
- Prev by Date: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
- Next by Date: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
- Previous by thread: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
- Next by thread: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
- Indexes: