| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15 |
| Date: | 2023-02-01 17:27:19 |
| Message-ID: | 1384520.1675272439@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2023-02-01 12:08:24 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I like the idea of not relying on system(). In most respects, doing
>> fork() + exec() ourselves seems superior. We can control where the
>> output goes, what we do while waiting, etc. But system() runs the
>> command through the shell, so that for example you don't have to
>> invent your own way of splitting a string into words to be passed to
>> exec[whatever](). I've never understood how you're supposed to get
>> that behavior other than by calling system().
> We could just exec the shell in the forked process, using -c to invoke
> the command. That should give us pretty much the same efficiency as
> system(), with a lot more control.
The main thing that system() brings to the table is platform-specific
knowledge of where the shell is. I'm not very sure that we want to
wire in "/bin/sh".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-02-01 17:39:32 | Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-01 17:23:27 | Re: MacOS: xsltproc fails with "warning: failed to load external entity" |