Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > ... Maybe we need a per-backend array in
> > shared memory just for those keys.  The postmaster has to keep those
> > keys anyway, so moving into shared memory might be the right solution.
>
> The postmaster's dependence on the contents of shared memory should
> ideally be zero (and it is zero, or nearly so, at the moment).
> Otherwise a backend crash that clobbers shared memory poses the risk of
> taking down the postmaster as well.  We can't go in that direction.

OK, but I think we are going to need shared memory to do signals on
Win32.  Perhaps we should create a second shared memory areas only for
fork/exec to hold the per-backend parameters and the signal stuff ---
that might be the cleanest solution.  Also, we could pass all the exec
parameters on the command line _except_ the cancel key, which must be
secret.

--
  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