Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > As I understand it, the postmaster shared memory idea is good because
> > only the postmaster writes to it, and only the backends read from it.
> > If the HANDLE works the same way, I think you should put it into the
> > shared memory too, hence (b).
> But the postmaster needs to use the HANDLE, hence not (b).
That's where I was unclear. If the postmaster has to read the HANDLE,
we are better with keeping it in local memory (a).
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: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2004-01-10 22:19:11|
|Subject: Re: psql-current italian translation updates|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-01-10 19:54:18|
|Subject: Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch |