Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec p
От | Claudio Natoli |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Win32 processCancelRequest/waitpid (was fork/exec p |
Дата | |
Msg-id | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B55F24A@harris.memetrics.local обсуждение исходный текст |
Список | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian writes: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > As I understand it, the postmaster shared memory idea is good because > > > only the postmaster writes to it, and only the backends read from it. > > > If the HANDLE works the same way, I think you should put it into the > > > shared memory too, hence (b). > > > > But the postmaster needs to use the HANDLE, hence not (b). > > That's where I was unclear. If the postmaster has to read the HANDLE, > we are better with keeping it in local memory (a). Only the postmaster will need these HANDLEs. Hence, why a local array for this in (a). (a) it is then. Figured as much, and starting working on it anyway :-) > [ FYI, I haven't seen you on IM lately.] Funny. Was just thinking of asking you the same thing. I'm on nearly *all* the time, but haven't seen you pop up recently... hmm. Cheers, Claudio --- Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see <a href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.memetrics.com/em ailpolicy.html</a>
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: