| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL Win32 port list" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Win32 lost signals open item |
| Date: | 2004-11-01 21:02:21 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE47607A@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
>>> Huh? Why?
>
>> Because we need to write the duplicated socket
>structure/pipe handle to
>> the parameter file. I guess we could create a separate parameter file
>> just for these things, but that seemed a bit unnecessary.
>
>Do we actually need to pass the handle, or could the subprocess reopen
>the pipe for itself?
Nope, we need to pass the handle. Only one process can be the
server-side of the pipe, and once the postmaster has opened it, the
child process can't do it - the only way to get it is through
inheritance.
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-01 21:11:10 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Win32 lost signals open item |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-01 20:55:46 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Win32 lost signals open item |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-01 21:11:10 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Win32 lost signals open item |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-01 20:55:46 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Win32 lost signals open item |