Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch
Date
Msg-id 200401102046.i0AKk4n05978@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > As I understand it, the postmaster shared memory idea is good because
> > only the postmaster writes to it, and only the backends read from it.
> > If the HANDLE works the same way, I think you should put it into the
> > shared memory too, hence (b).
>
> But the postmaster needs to use the HANDLE, hence not (b).

That's where I was unclear.  If the postmaster has to read the HANDLE,
we are better with keeping it in local memory (a).

--
  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: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump-current italian translation updates
Next
From: Claudio Natoli
Date:
Subject: Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec p