| From: | Brett McCormick <brett(at)work(dot)chicken(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh] |
| Date: | 1998-05-11 15:32:16 |
| Message-ID: | 13655.5907.63936.580899@abraxas.scene.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 11 May 1998, at 11:14:43, Tom Lane wrote:
> Brett McCormick <brett(at)work(dot)chicken(dot)org> writes:
> > same way that the current network socket is passed -- through an execv
> > argument. hopefully, however, the non-execv()ing fork will be in 6.4.
>
> Um, you missed the point, Brett. David was hoping to transfer a client
> connection from the postmaster to an *already existing* backend process.
> Fork, with or without exec, solves the problem for a backend that's
> started after the postmaster has accepted the client socket.
That's what I get for jumping in on a thread I wasn't paying much
attention to begin with.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brett McCormick | 1998-05-11 15:37:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh] |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1998-05-11 15:26:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh] |