From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
Date: | 2004-01-06 10:40:31 |
Message-ID: | 200401061040.i06AeV703067@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Claudio, where are we on this patch? I see an even newer version in the
archives:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-12/msg00361.php
However, I have never seen that version, and Google doesn't show it
either:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&group=comp.databases.postgresql.patches
Anyway, Tom has looked at your newest patch and it looks good to him.
These are all marked not for application so we will just wait for you to
finalize it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Natoli wrote:
>
> [patch edited + resubmitted for review; not for committing]
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> figuring that, on balance, you are in fact going to prefer to take a
> potential future hit in duplicated work (in passing context in the fork/exec
> case) over moving the client auth code to PostgresMain, I've just gone ahead
> and made a patch that implements your BackendFork ideas...
>
> Please let me know:
>
> * if the changes to the BackendFork / SubPostmasterMain logic are more or
> less what you envisaged, and if you are content with them [Note: we can also
> roll BackendInit back into BackendFork, making BackendFork (now BackendRun?)
> pretty much exactly as it was before the fork/exec changes began]
>
> * if you are content with the above, whether or not you think I ought to do
> the same for the SSDataBase logic. I'm hoping for a negative, as the #ifdef
> logic is not as convoluted as that originally presented in BackendFork (ie.
> to me, it looks like overkill in this case), but anticipating otherwise :-)
>
> Also:
> * are you ok with the pgstat changes (I'm guessing yes, as you haven't
> mentioned them, and since these changes are pretty similar to what you
> suggested for BackendFork)
>
> Cheers,
> Claudio
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
> For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see
> <a
> href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.memetrics.com/em
> ailpolicy.html</a>
>
>
[ Attachment, skipping... ]
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
--
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-06 10:42:17 | Re: Making pg_dump cvs friendly |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-06 05:44:45 | Re: TODO list |