Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:53:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> You can hardly claim that "no one had issues with that". > > > Don't the FSM and the system catalog cache use a similar mechanism? > > FSM uses a backing file to hold information over a database shutdown > (write once during shutdown, read once during startup). That's a little > different from once per backend fork. Also, there are no race > conditions to worry about, and finally the system does not *require* the > backing file to be either present or correct. > > The catalog cache uses a file that typically gets updated once per > VACUUM. Again, the file does not have to be present, nor correct. > There are mechanisms in place to deal with the cases (including race > conditions) where it's broken or obsolete. > > I have not looked at the proposed fork/exec code in any detail, but > IIUC it will be *necessary* that the intermediate file be present, and > correct. I think a minimum requirement for accepting this solution is a > sketch of how race conditions will be dealt with (ie, postmaster changes > its own value of some variable immediately after making the temp file). > I don't necessarily say that the first-cut patch has to get it right, > but we'd better understand how we will get to where it is right.
Agreed, added to the Win32 status page: * remove per-backend parameter file and move into shared memory -- 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 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings