Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: 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: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch
Date: 2004-01-10 19:54:18
Message-ID: 11859.1073764458@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> As I understand it, the postmaster shared memory idea is good because
> only the postmaster writes to it, and only the backends read from it.
> If the HANDLE works the same way, I think you should put it into the
> shared memory too, hence (b).

But the postmaster needs to use the HANDLE, hence not (b).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-01-10 20:46:04 Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-01-10 19:48:41 Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch