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 | 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
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: scott.marlowe||Date: 2003-12-17 15:55:29|
|Subject: Re: restore error - language "plperlu" is not trusted|
|Previous:||From: Andreas Pflug||Date: 2003-12-17 13:57:29|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch|