| From: | Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Tom Lane ' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 'Jan Wieck ' <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Bruce Momjian ' <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, "''''pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org' ' ' '" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
| Date: | 2004-01-09 02:48:25 |
| Message-ID: | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B55F23B@harris.memetrics.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane writes:
> Actually, on further reflection a separate array to store PIDs and
cancel keys is probably a better idea.
[snip]
> I still think it's unnecessary to make a separate shmem segment for it,
though.
Why is that? Don't we need the backends to have access to it to do a cancel
request? I think I've missed something here...
Claudio
---
Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see
<a
href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.memetrics.com/em
ailpolicy.html</a>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-01-09 02:52:42 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-01-09 02:46:54 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |