Re: Win32 semaphore patch

"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu> writes:
> I intentionally use *unnamed* semaphores to avoid these problems -- even if
> the semaphores didn't go away (as Magus pointed out, if all processes can
> exit gracefully, this won't happen), we won't worry about them -- Creating
> semahpores will still succeed because there is no existent same named
> semaphores will bother it.

Except that eventually you run the kernel out of resources.  We were
forced to confront that point very early when dealing with the SysV
API, because of the remarkably low resource limits it traditionally
has, but long-term resource leaks are never a good idea in any software.

Or are you designing this according to the widespread view that Windows
system uptimes are measured in small numbers of days anyway?

            regards, tom lane