From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, "'pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fork/exec patch |
Date: | 2003-12-15 00:02:31 |
Message-ID: | 20031215000231.GB9015@dcc.uchile.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-patches |
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:53:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I don't think we ever discussed it, but it seemed logical and a minimal
> > change to the code. We already have a GUC write of non-default values
> > for exec and no one had issues with that.
>
> You can hardly claim that "no one had issues with that". I complained
> about it and I think other people did too. It's a messy, ugly approach;
> moreover we have no field experience that says it's reliable.
Don't the FSM and the system catalog cache use a similar mechanism?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Limítate a mirar... y algun día veras"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-15 00:14:53 | Re: fork/exec patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-14 23:57:31 | Re: [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-15 00:14:53 | Re: fork/exec patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-14 23:57:31 | Re: [PATCHES] fork/exec patch |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-15 00:14:53 | Re: fork/exec patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-14 23:53:22 | Re: fork/exec patch |