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

Re: fork/exec

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>,PostgreSQL Win32 port list <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: fork/exec
Date: 2003-11-28 19:50:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Agreed.  We have to pass the shared memory address, but the rest should
> be registered in shared memory somewhere and we can initialize those
> values.  The old code used to point _using_ those memory pointers, but I
> don't think that is necessary --- in fork/exec mode, we can just use
> share memory to initialize the pointers properly.

Yeah.  It might be useful to extend the shmem segment header (which at
the moment is mostly just for identification) to hold one or two
critical addresses, such as the address of the LWLock array.  But the
index map used to work for this back when we had fork/exec in the Unix
implementation, so it should be possible to make it work again without
undue amounts of pain.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-11-28 21:04:39
Subject: Re: fork/exec
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-11-28 19:48:51
Subject: Re: fork/exec

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