| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Win32 port list <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fork/exec |
| Date: | 2003-11-28 21:24:22 |
| Message-ID: | 200311282124.hASLOMc11067@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > The random seed value is unique per-backend, and we want to keep it
> > secure so we can't pass it on the command line. I am not sure how to
> > deal with that.
>
> Uh, you mean the cancel key? There's no need for the random() seed per
> se to be shared between postmaster and backend, AFAICS.
Oh, good. I couldn't remember if it was the postmaster or child that
validates that key. I now remember only the postmaster needs the secret
because it sends the signal. Not sure what random seed Claudio was
asking about. Probably GUC's "seed" parameter --- Claudio, that is
already covered in that GUC binary file I create that I mentioned in an
earlier email.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-28 21:33:04 | Re: fork/exec |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-28 21:04:39 | Re: fork/exec |