Re: fork/exec patch

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I don't think we ever discussed it, but it seemed logical and a minimal
> > change to the code.  We already have a GUC write of non-default values
> > for exec and no one had issues with that.
>
> You can hardly claim that "no one had issues with that".  I complained
> about it and I think other people did too.  It's a messy, ugly approach;
> moreover we have no field experience that says it's reliable.
>
> It may be the least messy, ugly approach available, but I concur with
> Neil's wish to at least look for other answers.

Absolutely.  I am not happy with the GUC file either, but can't see a
better way right now.  I have already documented your concern about the
GUC race condition issue on the Win32 status page so we will not forget
about 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