Re: [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I don't think we ever discussed it, but it seemed logical and a minimal
> > change to the code. We already have a GUC write of non-default values
> > for exec and no one had issues with that.
>
> For the record, I think that is ugly as well :-)
>
> Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing that using shmem is the right way
> to go here -- that was merely an off-the-cuff suggestion. I'm just
> saying that whatever solution we end up with, ISTM we can do better
> than writing out + reading in a file for /every/ new connection.

[ Moved to hackers and win32. Discussion is writing postmaster-constant
and per-backend variables to a file for exec'ed backends to read.]

Sure --- I am all ears. I am looking for suggestions. I couldn't think
of anything better. I did ask a month ago for ideas on how to do this,
but got no reply.

One idea I had was to write the postmaster-constant values into one
file, and the per-backend values into another so you would write less
data for every backend, but then every backend has to read two files.
Is that a win?

--
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