Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
- Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:45:44 -0500
- Message-id: <4351(dot)1071679544(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes: >>> 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? >> >> Why would that be a problem? > In a nutshell: If the main thread holds a lock on something we need > (such as the heap), we just shot ourselves in the foot. Hmm. Sounds like SuspendThread is not a workable option at all. regards, tom lane
- References:
- Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
- From: Magnus Hagander
- Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
- 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: