Claudio Natoli wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
> > Actually, on further reflection a separate array to store PIDs and
> cancel keys is probably a better idea.
> > I still think it's unnecessary to make a separate shmem segment for it,
> 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
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Claudio Natoli||Date: 2004-01-09 03:21:44|
|Subject: Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization|
|Previous:||From: Claudio Natoli||Date: 2004-01-09 02:48:25|
|Subject: Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |