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

Re: [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,PostgreSQL Win32 port list <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date: 2003-12-14 23:57:31
Message-ID: 3736.1071446251@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-hackers-win32
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> ... Maybe we need a per-backend array in
> shared memory just for those keys.  The postmaster has to keep those
> keys anyway, so moving into shared memory might be the right solution.

The postmaster's dependence on the contents of shared memory should
ideally be zero (and it is zero, or nearly so, at the moment).
Otherwise a backend crash that clobbers shared memory poses the risk of
taking down the postmaster as well.  We can't go in that direction.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2003-12-15 00:02:31
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-12-14 23:53:22
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2003-12-15 00:02:31
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-12-14 23:53:22
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch

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