Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: fork/exec patch

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>
Cc: "'pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch
Date: 2003-12-17 15:27:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Claudio Natoli wrote:
> [Thought I replied to this already]
> > I am now thinking we have to remove pgsql/data/pgsql_tmp
> > unconditionally:
> > [snip]
> > The reason is that if they stop a postmaster that is 
> > fork/exec, install
> > a non-exec postmaster, and restart, we should still clear out that
> > directory.  I guess what i am saying is that I don't want to tie the
> > directory format to the exec() case of the binary.
> Could do. On the other hand, it is a directory for a small number (usually
> zero) of tmp files.
> More pertitently, is *anyone* even going to use fork/exec? Whilst there is
> no reason (yet) why someone couldn't, other than for development, why would
> anyone want to? I've only really been seeing it as a stepping stone to
> pushing the Win32 port out...

Agreed.  Forget my idea.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  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

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: scott.marloweDate: 2003-12-17 15:55:29
Subject: Re: restore error - language "plperlu" is not trusted
Previous:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2003-12-17 13:57:29
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group