On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:04 PM, james <james@mansionfamily.plus.com> wrote:
>>> The point remains that you need to duplicate it into every process that
>>> might
>>> want to use it subsequently, so it makes sense to DuplicateHandle into the
>>> parent, and then to advertise that handle value publicly so that other
>>> child
>>> processes can DuplicateHandle it back into their own process.
>>
>> Well, right now we just reopen the same object from all of the
>> processes, which seems to work fine and doesn't require any of this
>> complexity. The only problem I don't know how to solve is how to make
>> a segment stick around for the whole postmaster lifetime. If
>> duplicating the handle into the postmaster without its knowledge gets
>> us there, it may be worth considering, but that doesn't seem like a
>> good reason to rework the rest of the existing mechanism.
>
> I think one has to try this to see if it works as per the need. If it's not
> urgent, I can try this early next week?
Anything we want to get into 9.4 has to be submitted by next Tuesday,
but I don't know that we're going to get this into 9.4.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
