From: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | 'Bruce Momjian' <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, 'PostgreSQL Win32 port list' <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fork/exec |
Date: | 2003-12-01 08:58:04 |
Message-ID: | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B02805A@harris.memetrics.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> > Hm, seems messy. Note that setting up MyProc does *not*
> > require LWLock access, only a spinlock (which is obviously necessary
> > to avoid circularity). It might be best to replace ShmemIndexLock
> > with a spinlock to reduce the amount of infrastructure that has to
> > be live before we can make use of the shmem index hashtable.
>
> That looks like a great idea.
Worked a treat.
I've created a new spin lock. Should I send along a patch, or instead try to
use the existing ShmemLock?
(Note that, since ShmemAlloc locks/releases ShmemLock, ShmemInitStruct would
have to in some way indicate to ShmemAlloc that it was already holding...
which I can't imagine anyone is too keen on).
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>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-12-01 17:47:29 | pg_ctl |
Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2003-12-01 03:50:27 | Re: fork/exec |