Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers-win32

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date
Msg-id [email protected]
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch  (Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>)
List pgsql-hackers-win32
Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> writes:
> I see for the CONNX driver code that handles signal masking:

Aren't these functions in themselves totally thread-unsafe?

That wouldn't matter in a non-thread-based implementation, but if you
are going to rely on a second thread to handle signal processing, all
of the code that manipulates the private state of the signal emulation
had better be thread-safe.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Next
From: "Magnus Hagander"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch