Greg Ames wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > because if you do, the information
> > won't survive a restart. Imagine the pathological case, where a single
> > request is very long-lived, and it happens to survive multiple restarts.
> > If we reallocate during each restart, we will lose the status of that
> > request.
>
> good point...easily solved I think. "last guy out turns out the lights"
> - when the last process for generation x goes away, it's time to clean
> up generation x's huge chunk of shmem.
>
> >
> > > as pointers. The core should also allocate a new chunk of shmem to
> > > represent the processes at restart time, so we can get rid of the
> > > HARD_SERVER_LIMIT stuff (it's a PITA...think of admins in big shops who
> >
> > Again, you can't do that,
>
> understand your concern, but it just requires code.
There is already code to do cleanup when the last guy leaves. This could
easily be piggy backed onto that without any excessive or complex code
(provided, of course, that there were shmem calls to allocate/deallocate
when we wanted to).
--
Paul J. Reder
-----------------------------------------------------------
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each
citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do
his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."
-- Albert Einstein
