Re: parallel restore vs. windows
От | Andrew Chernow |
---|---|
Тема | Re: parallel restore vs. windows |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 493DE6CA.70407@esilo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: parallel restore vs. windows (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: parallel restore vs. windows
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>> HANDLE h = (HANDLE)_beginthreadex(NULL, 0, thread_start, arg, 0, NULL); > > This didn't give me any more joy, unfortunately. But you're right, I > should be using it. > Are these threads sharing memory, intentionally or by mistake? >> if(h) >> CloseHandle(h); > > Umm, even if I wait on the handle using waitForMultipleObjects() ? > I was only trying to demonstrate that the value returned by _beginthread can be managed/closed just like any other win32 HANDLE. > I am terminating the thread by returning from the thread function. I> understand this is the recommended way. I didn't see a CloseHandle on ret_child anywhere. The HANDLE still exists after the thread exists, you still have to call CloseHandle. -- Andrew Chernow eSilo, LLC every bit counts http://www.esilo.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: