From: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "'pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
Date: | 2003-12-27 10:27:27 |
Message-ID: | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B0280AC@harris.memetrics.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
[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 | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
diff5c2.out | application/octet-stream | 29.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Manfred Spraul | 2003-12-27 10:34:16 | Re: update i386 spinlock for hyperthreading |
Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2003-12-27 06:16:14 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |