Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance

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