| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'Bruce Momjian '" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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 05:09:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20696.1073624962@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> writes:
> Just to be clear, this would involve turning the BackendList dlllist into an
> array in shared memory, right? If so, a couple of questions:
Per Jan's comment, there is no need to mess with the existing
datastructure. I'd think more of *copying* the dllist into some array
in shared memory. This is code that would only need to exist in the
Windows port.
> - the postmaster makes all calls referencing this list, with the exception
> of processCancelRequest, correct?
The postmaster writes the array (and really would have no need to read
it). Sub-postmasters would need to read the array, either to check an
incoming cancel request or to get the current-session key value to pass
back to the client. I don't think that PostgresMain or any subsidiary
routine would ever need to touch it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-09 05:28:12 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-09 05:07:05 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |