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 throw me some code-snippet-ideas off-list that's not ready for an actual patch, be my guest - and maybe I can put something together. > >> 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. > > > I seem to remember being slapped about for daring to suggest using a > threaded embedded > language even if only one thread calls into the core, on the ground > that the signals might not > go to the right thread. So I'm assuming that a thread-aware build > would generally mask async > signals and wait for them in a specific thread in sigwait, which > would effectively match the > Win32 model (for a threaded build). That is something different than a threaded build, though ;-) You're probably more likely to get that to happen - though maybe not by much... //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
