Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>
Cc: "'Neil Conway'" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,"'Dennis Bjorklund'" <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>,"'pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>,PostgreSQL Win32 port list <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date: 2003-12-15 03:16:27
Message-ID: 200312150316.hBF3GRI27293@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-hackers-win32pgsql-patches
Claudio Natoli wrote:
> > For example, couldn't we write this data into a particular location in
> > shared memory, and then pass that location to the child? That is still
> > ugly, slow, and prone to failure (shmem being statically sized), but
> > ISTM that the proposed implementation already possesses those
> > attributes :-)
> 
> I agree that this is a better implementation.
> 
> Bruce, do we implement this now, or just hold it as something to revisit
> down the track? I'm all for leaving it as is.
> 
> Moreover, in general, how do we handle things like this? IMHO, I'd rather
> live with a few kludges (that don't impact the *nix code) until the Windows
> port is actually a reality, and then reiterate (having the discussions as we
> go along, however, is necessary). Perhaps adding a TO_REVISIT section to
> your Win32 Status Report page?
> 
> Or do people have strong leanings towards "fix as you go along"? Just feels
> like that way could see us getting bogged down making things "perfect"
> instead of advancing the port...

Let's get it working first.  I have added an item to the Win32 status
page so we will not forget it.

-- 
  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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-12-15 03:17:30
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-12-15 03:14:48
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-12-15 03:17:30
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-12-15 03:14:48
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-12-15 03:17:30
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-12-15 03:14:48
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group