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: | '''Tom Lane ' ' ' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, '''Jan Wieck ' ' ' <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "''''''pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org' ' ' ' ' '" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
Date: | 2004-01-09 05:01:07 |
Message-ID: | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B55F23D@harris.memetrics.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
I wrote:
> Just to be clear, this would involve turning the BackendList dlllist into
an
> array in shared memory, right? If so, a couple of questions:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I assumed a much simpler solution. I thought we would just have:
>
> struct {
> pid_t pid;
> int cancel_key;
> } PidCancel[maxbackend];
>
> in shared memory and we would just sequentially scan looking for a pid
> match? Is that wrong?
Isn't that basically "turning the BackendList dlllist into an array in
shared memory"? And I don't think that an array length of maxbackend is
enough.
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 | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-09 05:07:05 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-09 04:58:27 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed replacement for pipe under Win32 |