Neil Conway wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't think we ever discussed it, but it seemed logical and a minimal > > change to the code. We already have a GUC write of non-default values > > for exec and no one had issues with that. > > For the record, I think that is ugly as well :-) > > Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing that using shmem is the right way > to go here -- that was merely an off-the-cuff suggestion. I'm just > saying that whatever solution we end up with, ISTM we can do better > than writing out + reading in a file for /every/ new connection.
[ Moved to hackers and win32. Discussion is writing postmaster-constant and per-backend variables to a file for exec'ed backends to read.] Sure --- I am all ears. I am looking for suggestions. I couldn't think of anything better. I did ask a month ago for ideas on how to do this, but got no reply. One idea I had was to write the postmaster-constant values into one file, and the per-backend values into another so you would write less data for every backend, but then every backend has to read two files. Is that a win? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
