Re: fork/exec patch

[Thanks to Tom + Bruce]

For the remaining comments...

> The number of "FIXME" or "This is ugly" comments doesn't ease my mind
> about this patch :-) How many of these issues do you plan to resolve?

All of them, as we go along. Treat this as a first step.

> - break;
>
> case 'd': /* debug level
>*/
> {
>
>Why was this change made? If you actually intend to fall through the
> case here, please make it clear via a comment.

I can't believe that got through! It is an editing mistake, pure and simple.
Thank you for catching it. [bashes head against wall]

> + #define get_tmp_backend_var_file_name(buf,id) \
> + Assert(DataDir); \
> + sprintf((buf), \
> + "%s/%s/%s.backend_var.%d", \
> + DataDir, \
> + PG_TEMP_FILES_DIR, \
> + PG_TEMP_FILE_PREFIX, \
> + (id))
>
> This macro needs to be enclosed in a do {} while (0) block. Also,
> what does the "var" in the name of this macro refer to?

"var" refers to "variable". Will add a do while block in a following patch.

> + #define get_tmp_backend_var_dir(buf) \
> + sprintf((buf),"%s/%s",DataDir,PG_TEMP_FILES_DIR)
>
> This seems a little pointless, IMHO.

True.

> + static void
> [snip]
> ereport(FATAL) seems too strong, doesn't it?

Possibly.

> + read_var(LWLockArray,fp);
> + read_var(ProcStructLock,fp);
> + read_var(pgStatSock,fp);
> +
> + /* Release file */
> + FreeFile(fp);
> + unlink(filename);
>
> You should probably check the return value of unlink().

No. This isn't necessary (and what action would it take in any case?). If it
doesn't unlink the file, tough. A backend crash could also leave these files
on the disk. Like the other pgtmp files they'll get cleaned up on postmaster
restart.

> (circa line 335 of ipc/shmem.c:)
> [snip]
> Doesn't this function still acquire ShmemIndexLock? (i.e. why was this
comment changed?)

AFAICS this is just whitespace differences.

With the exception of that missing "break" (Bruce, I guess it goes without
saying, but could you please remove that line from the patch before
applying... and again "Thank you Neil"), these are stylistic/cosmetic and
effect the EXEC_BACKEND code only.

Would a follow-up patch to correct these, along with the next step of the
fork/exec changes, be acceptable?

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>