| From: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Bruce Momjian' <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fork/exec patch |
| Date: | 2003-12-17 07:07:15 |
| Message-ID: | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B028098@harris.memetrics.local |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
[Thought I replied to this already]
> I am now thinking we have to remove pgsql/data/pgsql_tmp
> unconditionally:
> [snip]
> The reason is that if they stop a postmaster that is
> fork/exec, install
> a non-exec postmaster, and restart, we should still clear out that
> directory. I guess what i am saying is that I don't want to tie the
> directory format to the exec() case of the binary.
Could do. On the other hand, it is a directory for a small number (usually
zero) of tmp files.
More pertitently, is *anyone* even going to use fork/exec? Whilst there is
no reason (yet) why someone couldn't, other than for development, why would
anyone want to? I've only really been seeing it as a stepping stone to
pushing the Win32 port out...
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 | Tom Lane | 2003-12-17 08:25:03 | Re: [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-17 07:07:03 | Re: Unix timestamp -> timestamp, per Tom Lane :) |