Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ... Maybe we need a per-backend array in > > shared memory just for those keys. The postmaster has to keep those > > keys anyway, so moving into shared memory might be the right solution. > > The postmaster's dependence on the contents of shared memory should > ideally be zero (and it is zero, or nearly so, at the moment). > Otherwise a backend crash that clobbers shared memory poses the risk of > taking down the postmaster as well. We can't go in that direction.
OK, but I think we are going to need shared memory to do signals on Win32. Perhaps we should create a second shared memory areas only for fork/exec to hold the per-backend parameters and the signal stuff --- that might be the cleanest solution. Also, we could pass all the exec parameters on the command line _except_ the cancel key, which must be secret. -- 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 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
