Re: fork/exec patch

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> change to the code. We already have a GUC write of non-default values
> for exec and no one had issues with that. Of course, this one is
> per-backend.
>
> Yea, we could use shared memory for this too, but I don't see a problem
> with using the file system.

Why not use an anonymous pipe to send data from the parent to the child
process? That is a common way to handle this problem in win32 (and in unix
by the way). The parent sets up the pipe and the child process inherits
the handle, and after that the child and parent can excange information in
private.

--
/Dennis