RE: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Vadim Mikheev" <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>, "Bruce Momjian" <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Developers List" <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?
Date: 1999-09-20 06:27:48
Message-ID: 000001bf0331$4211b200$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org]On Behalf Of Vadim Mikheev
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 2:34 PM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: PostgreSQL Developers List
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Or shmem inheritance is not portable?
> >
> > If it works on your machine with it removed, commit the change and I can
> > test it here. I don't know of any portability problems with shared
> > memory children.
>
> I wrote simple test program and it works under FreeBSD and Solaris
> (on Ultra). Currently I'm not able to do more. Actually, I worry
> does this work under MS Windows.
>

Where do we attach to shmem after fork() ?
I couldn't find the place.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vadim Mikheev 1999-09-20 06:58:03 Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?
Previous Message Dmitry Samersoff 1999-09-20 05:53:29 Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2