Re: fork/exec
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: fork/exec |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 24103.1070213411@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: fork/exec (Claudio Natoli <claudio.natoli@memetrics.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Claudio Natoli <claudio.natoli@memetrics.com> writes: > Would it be possible to re-jig ShmemInitStruct to not require locking That strikes me as entirely unsafe. Back when we actually had fork/exec for Unix, there were three shmem segments not one. Part of the reason for this was that spinlocks occupied their own segment, and so they could be found and accessed without any reference to the main shmem index. (I forget what the third segment was for, but I think it was not critical for startup.) Probably the best way to model this now is to put a pointer (or whatever is needed) to the LWLock array into the shmem segment header, whence it can be grabbed without any locking. This will allow a new backend's lock manager to be initialized immediately. Then we can safely (ie, with locking) initialize access to the shmem index hashtable (it might take another pointer in the segment header to find it) and then everything else can be looked up in the index hashtable. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers-win32 по дате отправления: