Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Developers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?
Date: 1999-09-20 13:23:19
Message-ID: 199909201323.JAA18526@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >
> > Where do we attach to shmem after fork() ?
> > I couldn't find the place.
>
> Ops, sorry, you're right - postinit.c:InitCommunication():
>
> if (!IsUnderPostmaster) /* postmaster already did this */
> {
> PostgresIpcKey = key;
> AttachSharedMemoryAndSemaphores(key);
> }
>
> Though, AttachSharedMemoryAndSemaphores():
>
> if (key == PrivateIPCKey)
> {
> CreateSharedMemoryAndSemaphores(key, 16);
> return;
> }
>
> ... and useless shmem attachment stuff follows after this ...
>
> Cleanup is still required, but subj is closed, thanks -:)

My guess is that this is something I missed when removing the exec().

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-09-20 13:27:10 Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-09-20 13:21:04 Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?