Revised patch to avoid lost signals before signaling mechanism is set up
in Win32. This was tested by plus a line:
Sleep(10*1000);
in the front of pgwin32_signal_initialize().
Regards,
Qingqing
Index: src/port/kill.c
===
Hi!
A quick-check (haven't checked any details) - your unconditional use of
Global\ will not work on NT4. With 8.0 we said we wanted to support NT4
with some limits (IIRC, tablespaces don't work, and the intaller
definitly doesn't work). If we want to continue doing that (which I
think we do),
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Hi!
A quick-check (haven't checked any details) - your unconditional use of
Global\ will not work on NT4. With 8.0 we said we wanted to support NT4
with some limits (IIRC, tablespaces don't work, and the intaller
definitly doesn't work). If we want to continue doing
Hi!
A quick-check (haven't checked any details) - your
unconditional use of
Global\ will not work on NT4. With 8.0 we said we wanted to
support NT4
with some limits (IIRC, tablespaces don't work, and the intaller
definitly doesn't work). If we want to continue doing that (which I
think
A quick-check (haven't checked any details) - your
unconditional use of
Global\ will not work on NT4. With 8.0 we said we wanted to
support NT4
with some limits (IIRC, tablespaces don't work, and the intaller
definitly doesn't work). If we want to continue doing
that (which I
think
This patch simplified Win32 signaling code per discussion in hackers. In
this implementation, each process will have a named (by its pid) mutex,
named shared memory area and named event in global namespace. The process
is
sending/receiving signals as the following:
(*) the process who kill the
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Looking at this patch reminds me of another discussion we had:
Signals sent by the postmaster *before the signaling code is running in
the child* has to be handled.
This is handled in the curernt code by creating the pipe in the
postmaster and then
In thread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers-win32/2004-11/msg00010.php
---
Do we actually need to pass the handle, or could the subprocess reopen
the pipe for itself?
Nope, we need to pass the handle. Only one process can be the
server-side of the pipe, and once the postmaster has
