Re: fork/exec patch

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.
>
> It may be the least messy, ugly approach available, but I concur with
> Neil's wish to at least look for other answers.

Absolutely. I am not happy with the GUC file either, but can't see a
better way right now. I have already documented your concern about the
GUC race condition issue on the Win32 status page so we will not forget
about it.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073