Re: fork/exec patch

Claudio Natoli wrote:
> > For example, couldn't we write this data into a particular location in
> > shared memory, and then pass that location to the child? That is still
> > ugly, slow, and prone to failure (shmem being statically sized), but
> > ISTM that the proposed implementation already possesses those
> > attributes :-)
>
> I agree that this is a better implementation.
>
> Bruce, do we implement this now, or just hold it as something to revisit
> down the track? I'm all for leaving it as is.
>
> Moreover, in general, how do we handle things like this? IMHO, I'd rather
> live with a few kludges (that don't impact the *nix code) until the Windows
> port is actually a reality, and then reiterate (having the discussions as we
> go along, however, is necessary). Perhaps adding a TO_REVISIT section to
> your Win32 Status Report page?
>
> Or do people have strong leanings towards "fix as you go along"? Just feels
> like that way could see us getting bogged down making things "perfect"
> instead of advancing the port...

Let's get it working first.  I have added an item to the Win32 status
page so we will not forget it.

--
  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