Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec p

From: Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>
To: 'Bruce Momjian' <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, 'Jan Wieck ' <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "'pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org '" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec p
Date: 2004-01-11 00:52:18
Message-ID: A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B55F24A@harris.memetrics.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches


Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > As I understand it, the postmaster shared memory idea is good because
> > > only the postmaster writes to it, and only the backends read from it.
> > > If the HANDLE works the same way, I think you should put it into the
> > > shared memory too, hence (b).
> >
> > But the postmaster needs to use the HANDLE, hence not (b).
>
> That's where I was unclear. If the postmaster has to read the HANDLE,
> we are better with keeping it in local memory (a).

Only the postmaster will need these HANDLEs. Hence, why a local array for
this in (a).

(a) it is then. Figured as much, and starting working on it anyway :-)

> [ FYI, I haven't seen you on IM lately.]

Funny. Was just thinking of asking you the same thing. I'm on nearly *all*
the time, but haven't seen you pop up recently... hmm.

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>

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Igor Shevchenko 2004-01-11 00:54:05 psql's "\d" and CLUSTER
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2004-01-10 22:19:23 Re: pg_dump-current italian translation updates