On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 15:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We keep talking about EXEC_BACKEND mode, though until recently I had
> > misunderstood what that meant. I also realised that I have more than
> > once neglected to take it into account when writing a patch - one recent
> > patch failed to do this.
> 
> > I can't find anything coherent in docs/readme/comments to explain why it
> > exists and what its implications are.
> 
> It exists because Windows doesn't have fork(), only the equivalent of
> fork-and-exec.  Which means that no state variables will be inherited
> from the postmaster by its child processes, and any state that needs to
> be carried across has to be handled explicitly.  You can define
> EXEC_BACKEND in a non-Windows build, for the purpose of testing code
> to see if it works in that environment.

OK, if its that simple then I see why its not documented. Thanks. I
thought there might be more to it than that.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to