From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: do we EXEC_BACKEND on Mac OS X? |
Date: | 2012-10-03 17:53:28 |
Message-ID: | 17907.1349286808@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Yes, but those framework libraries are typically supposed to prevent
> such problems from being seen by applications calling them.
How exactly would a library prevent such problems? In particular,
let's see a proposal for how libpq might make it look like a fork
was transparent for an open connection.
> This is
> certainly sloppy practice on Apple's part, and it leave us wondering if
> we are using anything that might be a problem. The bottom line is that
> we don't know.
> Libraries are supposed to document these limitations, as we do with
> libpq. I wonder if they just documented fork() and now don't feel they
> need to document these limitations per-library.
Do we know that they *didn't* document such issues per-library?
Mentioning the risk under fork() too doesn't seem unreasonable.
Not trying to sound like an Apple apologist, but I see a whole lot of
bashing going on here on the basis of darn little evidence.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-03 17:56:01 | Re: CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS |
Previous Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2012-10-03 17:29:38 | Re: CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS |