Re: fork/exec patch

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Let me add that Claudio is doing a fantastic job on this. The
> changes are minimal and clean. I think the writing of a per-backend
> temp file has allowed this patch to be smaller than it might have
> been.

Did we REALLY conclude that the best way to work around the lack of
fork() on Win32 is by writing variables out to disk and reading them
back in? Frankly, that seems like an enormous kludge.

For example, couldn't we write this data into a particular location in
shared memory, and then pass that location to the child? That is still
ugly, slow, and prone to failure (shmem being statically sized), but
ISTM that the proposed implementation already possesses those
attributes :-)

(/me goes off to re-read the archives on this issue...)

-Neil