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

Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch

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>,"'Jan Wieck '" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>,"'pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org '" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch
Date: 2004-01-10 20:46:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > As I understand it, the postmaster shared memory idea is good because
> > only the postmaster writes to it, and only the backends read from it.
> > If the HANDLE works the same way, I think you should put it into the
> > shared memory too, hence (b).
> But the postmaster needs to use the HANDLE, hence not (b).

That's where I was unclear.  If the postmaster has to read the HANDLE,
we are better with keeping it in local memory (a).

  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: Peter EisentrautDate: 2004-01-10 22:19:11
Subject: Re: psql-current italian translation updates
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-01-10 19:54:18
Subject: Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch

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