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

Re: fork/exec

From: Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>
To: 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,PostgreSQL Win32 port list <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: fork/exec
Date: 2003-12-01 03:50:27
Message-ID: A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B028057@harris.memetrics.local (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32

> Hm, seems messy.  Note that setting up MyProc does *not* 
> require LWLock access, only a spinlock (which is obviously necessary 
> to avoid circularity).  It might be best to replace ShmemIndexLock 
> with a spinlock to reduce the amount of infrastructure that has to be live

> before we can make use of the shmem index hashtable. 

That looks like a great idea.

> I don't want to abandon locking entirely, but I do think we can simplify 
> the lock type if it helps make the startup sequence easier.

It would certainly do that. I'll take a look at it tonight...


Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see 

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Claudio NatoliDate: 2003-12-01 08:58:04
Subject: Re: fork/exec
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-12-01 01:55:35
Subject: Re: fork/exec

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