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

Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization

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 02:52:42
Message-ID: 200401090252.i092qgF02054@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Claudio Natoli wrote:
> 
> Tom Lane writes:
> > Actually, on further reflection a separate array to store PIDs and
> cancel keys is probably a better idea.  
> [snip]
> > I still think it's unnecessary to make a separate shmem segment for it,
> though.
> 
> Why is that? Don't we need the backends to have access to it to do a cancel
> request? I think I've missed something here...

I think they are saying put the cancel key inside the existing shared
memory segment.  I don't know when we actually attach to the main shared
memory sigment in the child, but it would have to be sooner than when we
need the cancel key.

-- 
  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

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Claudio NatoliDate: 2004-01-09 03:21:44
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization
Previous:From: Claudio NatoliDate: 2004-01-09 02:48:25
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization

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