| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'Tom Lane '" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Jan Wieck '" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "''''pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org' ' ' '" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
| Date: | 2004-01-09 02:52:42 |
| Message-ID: | 200401090252.i092qgF02054@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Claudio Natoli wrote:
>
> Tom Lane writes:
> > Actually, on further reflection a separate array to store PIDs and
> cancel keys is probably a better idea.
> [snip]
> > I still think it's unnecessary to make a separate shmem segment for it,
> though.
>
> Why is that? Don't we need the backends to have access to it to do a cancel
> request? I think I've missed something here...
I think they are saying put the cancel key inside the existing shared
memory segment. I don't know when we actually attach to the main shared
memory sigment in the child, but it would have to be sooner than when we
need the cancel key.
--
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 | Claudio Natoli | 2004-01-09 03:21:44 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
| Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2004-01-09 02:48:25 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |