From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Clog handling on exec'ed backend |
Date: | 2003-05-03 02:32:04 |
Message-ID: | 200305030232.h432W4x15377@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > It basically makes one of the Clog data structures into a shared memory
> > area when using exec (EXEC_BACKEND is defined). It passes all the
> > regression/initdb tests on Unix.
>
> It would be cleaner to make the array of LWLockIds part of ClogCtlData,
> if you're going to do it that way. I have doubts that pushing all
> LWLockIds into shared memory is a feasible solution, however.
OK, we will keep it as proposed so that shared memory issue only effects
exec() setups.
> Out of curiosity: have you actually tested any of this Windows code
> you're proposing to commit? A lot of it looks to me like it's not
> gonna work --- stuff is getting done too soon or too late. For
> example, I don't see how a backend is going to read GUC variables
> when it doesn't yet know where the data directory is.
I have not tested it yet because it _all_ has to be done before anything
is going to work. That's why I am trying exec() on Unix first as at
least a minimal way to test things. I am going to have to move things
around once I have the code working.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-05-03 03:59:12 | Re: Clog handling on exec'ed backend |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-03 02:03:59 | Re: Clog handling on exec'ed backend |