Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>With a little more intelligence in the manager of this table, this could
>also solve my concern about pointer variables. Perhaps the entries
>could include not just address/size but some type information. If the
>manager knows "this variable is a pointer to a palloc'd string" then it
>could do the Right Thing during fork. Not sure offhand what the
>categories would need to be, but we could derive those if anyone has
>cataloged the variables that get passed down from postmaster to children.
>
>I don't think it needs to be a hashtable --- you wouldn't ever be doing
>lookups in it, would you? Just a simple list of things-to-copy ought to
>do fine.
>
>
I'm thinking in a threaded context where a method may need to lookup a
global that is not passed in. But for copying, I suppose no lookups
would be
neccessary.
Myron Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
