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

Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization

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>,'''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 05:44:02
Message-ID: A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B55F23E@harris.memetrics.local (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tom Lane:
> 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.

(I thought Jan was referring to the PGPROC struct)

This just seems a little odd to me. I mean, they are going to be basically
identical (they'll even use the same struct!).

Also, let's get back to why we want this: to handle processCancelRequest in
the Win32 case. If this array is in Windows only, then we'll obviously need
two implementations of the processCancelRequest logic.

Or I'm missing something...

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>

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Claudio NatoliDate: 2004-01-09 05:52:45
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-01-09 05:28:12
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization

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