From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, "'Jan Wieck '" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "'pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org '" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch |
Date: | 2004-01-10 20:46:04 |
Message-ID: | 200401102046.i0AKk4n05978@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > As I understand it, the postmaster shared memory idea is good because
> > only the postmaster writes to it, and only the backends read from it.
> > If the HANDLE works the same way, I think you should put it into the
> > shared memory too, hence (b).
>
> But the postmaster needs to use the HANDLE, hence not (b).
That's where I was unclear. If the postmaster has to read the HANDLE,
we are better with keeping it in local memory (a).
--
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 | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-01-10 22:19:11 | Re: psql-current italian translation updates |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-10 19:54:18 | Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch |