Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> The hard part looks to be cancelling/changing the timer, which means
> that we can't just create a set and forget listener thread for a given
> timeout. Otherwise that seems to me the straightforward approach.
Yeah. I think probably the cleanest way is to create a persistent
thread that manages the timer. We need a way for the main thread to
tell it to cancel the timer or change the setting. Dunno enough about
Windows' interthread communication primitives to propose details.
> I doubt the changes would be very invasive - with luck just confined to
> timer.c.
I don't see a need for anything else to know about it, either.
regards, tom lane