Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> 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. > > I added a little documentation at the top of > postmaster.c::backend_forkexec().
Doesn't that make more sense in say, the Developer FAQ? //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
