From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | 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 01:16:04 |
Message-ID: | 200401090116.i091G4014784@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Claudio Natoli wrote:
>
> > BTW, how are we going to do cancels in Windows-land? The sub-postmaster
> > isn't gonna have access to the postmaster's list of child PIDs and
> > cancel keys ...
>
> Good question (the Win32/EXEC_BACKEND case is #def'd out to issue an
> altogether unhelpful abort(), so I know it is there).
>
> The only things I've thought of so far are:
> a) sticking the PID/cancel key list in shared mem [yeech]
> b) rearranging the entire cancel handling to occur in the postmaster [double
> yeech]
As I remember, the only per-backend value to be passed is the cancel
key, and seeing that this is going to be a problem for postmaster too, I
think we need to move in the direction of a separate fork/exec-only
shared memory segment that holds the pids and cancel keys for all the
backends.
I will update the Win32 TODO list to mention this issue in more detail.
--
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 | Tom Lane | 2004-01-09 01:21:50 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-01-09 01:12:32 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |