""Magnus Hagander"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > > Yeah, that should work. With one shared memory segment and one event for > each process, of course. The event can be the same one as is used now, > only it has to be named so it can be accessed externally. >
Yes, the shared memory segment size could be controlled by MaxBackends. > It would do away with the thread, certainly. But it's not quite as > simple as you outline above - you'll need to replace the critical > section locking (easy, lightweight) with a mutex or something like that > (more complex, more heavy weight). But probably named pipes is more > heavy, yes. > Yes, use mutex. > You'll also need some way of delivering the feedback, I think - kill(0) > is supposed to tell you if there is a live process in th eother end, so > you can't just throw the signal out and hope for the best. > To simulate kill(0) we can test the process handle, just like we handle waitpid(). ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
