Re: [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

Bruce Momjian wrote:

>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>> Now for the fun
>>part (signals).
>>
>>
>
>Actually, no.  I thought fork/exec would be a real mess (as did Tom),
>but Claudio has done an excellent job of producing a minimal patch.  The
>work isn't done yet, but this small patch has taken us much closer, so I
>assume signals will be even easier.
>



Well, it's speculation on both our parts :-). ISTM we'll need an
explicit event loop to check the shmem (or whatever we use to simulate
signals) every so often - maybe that will be easy, I don't know - I'm
interested to see what turns up. (Of course, if we were threaded we'd
just need a thread to watch for the event ...)

cheers

andrew