From: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Tom Lane ' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 'Bruce Momjian ' <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, ''''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 05:52:45 |
Message-ID: | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B55F23F@harris.memetrics.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the simplest way to make this work is to use an array that's
> 2*MaxBackend items long (corresponding to the max number of children the
> postmaster will fork).
Actually, now that I think about it, is even that big enough. There is a
reason BackendList is a list. In pathological situations, the postmaster
could be made to fork a much larger number than 2*MaxBackend simultaneous
children, although only this many will be allowed to become backends.
(I guess we could check the port->canAcceptConnections value, and not add
the backend to the array when == CAC_TOOMANY).
> There is no race condition possible for the ProcessCancelRequest case ---
> the sub-postmaster that spawned an active backend must have found its
> entry before it could have sent the cancel key to the client, so any
> valid cancel request from a client must reference an already-existing
> entry in the array.
Make sense. Great.
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 | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-09 05:56:28 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-01-09 05:44:02 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |