I wrote:
> But I'll happily concede the point, and prove it by knocking
> up a patch for it over the weekend (unless anyone else
> particularly wants to).
Occurs to me I could kill 2 birds with one stone, and also implement another
Win32 sticking point, namely the waitpid changes for the Postmaster, by
having win32_forkexec do one of the following:
a) - when a backend startup is indicated, add a pid/cancel_key struct
(Backend) to this new array in shared mem
- when any child of the postmaster is started, also add a pid/HANDLE
struct to a postmaster local array (or perhaps a dlllist)
b) - when any child of the postmaster is started, add a
pid/cancel_key/HANDLE/isBackend struct to this new array in shared mem
(HANDLE for waiting on to determine child death; isBackend to separate
BackendList backends from other children)
Choosing a over b:
PRO: as we've already been through, keeps the postmaster-only data
local to the postmaster, stopping tampering from rouge backends
CON: yet more redundancy
Given recent conversations, I'm guessing (a), but any comments before going
ahead and doing it?
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>
