Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]

same way that the current network socket is passed -- through an execv
argument.  hopefully, however, the non-execv()ing fork will be in 6.4.

does anyone have any suggestions for postmaster->backend variable
passing?  Should it just pass an argv array for compatiblity reasons?
There will have to be some sort of arg parsing in any case,
considering that you can pass configurable arguments to the backend..

On Mon, 11 May 1998, at 10:49:11, Tom Lane wrote:

> Cool idea ... but how to get the socket passed off from postmaster to
> back end, other than through a fork?
>
> I think there is a facility in SYSV messaging to transmit a file
> descriptor from one process to another, but that's not going to be a
> portable answer.
>
>             regards, tom lane