| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL Win32 port list" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Win32 lost signals open item |
| Date: | 2004-11-01 20:55:46 |
| Message-ID: | 25185.1099342546@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
>> Huh? Why?
> Because we need to write the duplicated socket structure/pipe handle to
> the parameter file. I guess we could create a separate parameter file
> just for these things, but that seemed a bit unnecessary.
Do we actually need to pass the handle, or could the subprocess reopen
the pipe for itself?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-11-01 21:02:21 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Win32 lost signals open item |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-11-01 20:53:45 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Win32 lost signals open item |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-11-01 21:02:21 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Win32 lost signals open item |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-11-01 20:53:45 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Win32 lost signals open item |