Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > change to the code.  We already have a GUC write of non-default values
> > for exec and no one had issues with that.  Of course, this one is
> > per-backend.
> > 
> > Yea, we could use shared memory for this too, but I don't see a problem
> > with using the file system.
> Why not use an anonymous pipe to send data from the parent to the child
> process? That is a common way to handle this problem in win32 (and in unix
> by the way). The parent sets up the pipe and the child process inherits
> the handle, and after that the child and parent can excange information in
> private.

Doesn't that require the postmaster to stay around to feed that
information into the pipe or can the postmaster just shove the data and
continue on, and how do the old pipes get cleaned up?  Seems messy. 
Also has to work on Unix too for testing.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [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

Reply via email to