Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization
Date
Msg-id 200401090252.i092qgF02054@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization  (Claudio Natoli <claudio.natoli@memetrics.com>)
Responses Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-patches
Claudio Natoli wrote:
>
> 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...

I think they are saying put the cancel key inside the existing shared
memory segment.  I don't know when we actually attach to the main shared
memory sigment in the child, but it would have to be sooner than when we
need the cancel key.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Claudio Natoli
Date:
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization
Next
From: Claudio Natoli
Date:
Subject: Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization