| From: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Win32 port list <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fork/exec |
| Date: | 2003-12-01 03:50:27 |
| Message-ID: | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B028057@harris.memetrics.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> Hm, seems messy. Note that setting up MyProc does *not*
> require LWLock access, only a spinlock (which is obviously necessary
> to avoid circularity). It might be best to replace ShmemIndexLock
> with a spinlock to reduce the amount of infrastructure that has to be live
> before we can make use of the shmem index hashtable.
That looks like a great idea.
> I don't want to abandon locking entirely, but I do think we can simplify
> the lock type if it helps make the startup sequence easier.
It would certainly do that. I'll take a look at it tonight...
Cheers,
Claudio
---
Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see
<a
href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.memetrics.com/em
ailpolicy.html</a>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Natoli | 2003-12-01 08:58:04 | Re: fork/exec |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-01 01:55:35 | Re: fork/exec |