| 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>, '''Jan Wieck ' ' ' <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(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 05:44:02 |
| Message-ID: | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B55F23E@harris.memetrics.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane:
> Per Jan's comment, there is no need to mess with the existing
> datastructure. I'd think more of *copying* the dllist into some array
> in shared memory. This is code that would only need to exist in the
> Windows port.
(I thought Jan was referring to the PGPROC struct)
This just seems a little odd to me. I mean, they are going to be basically
identical (they'll even use the same struct!).
Also, let's get back to why we want this: to handle processCancelRequest in
the Win32 case. If this array is in Windows only, then we'll obviously need
two implementations of the processCancelRequest logic.
Or I'm missing something...
Cheers,
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 | Claudio Natoli | 2004-01-09 05:52:45 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-09 05:28:12 | Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization |