Re: [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > ... Maybe we need a per-backend array in
> > shared memory just for those keys. The postmaster has to keep those
> > keys anyway, so moving into shared memory might be the right solution.
>
> The postmaster's dependence on the contents of shared memory should
> ideally be zero (and it is zero, or nearly so, at the moment).
> Otherwise a backend crash that clobbers shared memory poses the risk of
> taking down the postmaster as well. We can't go in that direction.

OK, but I think we are going to need shared memory to do signals on
Win32. Perhaps we should create a second shared memory areas only for
fork/exec to hold the per-backend parameters and the signal stuff ---
that might be the cleanest solution. Also, we could pass all the exec
parameters on the command line _except_ the cancel key, which must be
secret.

--
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