Re: fork/exec
От | Claudio Natoli |
---|---|
Тема | Re: fork/exec |
Дата | |
Msg-id | A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B55F2B7@harris.memetrics.local обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | fork/exec (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: fork/exec
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > What does SSDataBaseInit have to do with acquiring configuration > parameters? (Answer: nothing.) Why is it being called here at all, > and why only in the EXEC_BACKEND case? Sure can't figure > that out from > the uncommented code. Is it a good idea to do it? I rather doubt it > --- that routine does on_exit_reset, which would lose any previously > registered exit callbacks, which is something that should only happen > immediately after fork(), not as far down in BootstrapMain as this is > being done. That is a remaining wart. Having fixed a similar pattern in the backend creation, I asked whether or not fixing the Bootstrap process creation was overkill, and took no answer to be in the affirmative... > But Andrew's complaint already had some merit even before this work > started. We probably ought to rear back and contemplate the overall > structure of postmaster.c and postgres.c, and see what we can > do to make it more comprehensible. I don't have any immediate thoughts > about what to do, just a bee in my bonnet that it needs to be done. Any ideas? If you like, I'll quickly provide a reversion of the BackendRun/Init split, and perhaps implement a "SubBootstrapMain"-ism... but this doesn't really help things overall. Is it at least a better point to start from? 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-hackers по дате отправления: