Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Agreed, added to the Win32 status page: > > * remove per-backend parameter file and move into shared memory > > [itch] I'm not sure that's an answer either; see my comments about how > the postmaster shouldn't depend on the contents of shared memory being > valid. > > We could get away with the postmaster having a write-only relationship > to shared memory (put value of variable X into predetermined location > Y), but I don't think that helps. It doesn't work for variable-size > values --- we certainly don't want the postmaster dependent on memory > allocation structures being valid within shared memory --- and what > about locks? Do you want the postmaster writing shared values without > taking a lock, or relying on shared-memory lock structures to be valid > enough to not lock it up or crash it? My answer to either of those is > "no way, Jose" ... > > Writing temp files may actually be a cleaner solution than writing > shared memory, once we take these considerations into account. My gripe > about race conditions was "I want to see how you solve this", and wasn't > intended to mean "I don't think that is soluble".
Read my idea that shared memory for signals might be required, and a separate shared memory segment might be used for parameter passing too. I added a question mark to the win32 TODO item, so we can keep as an open item. -- 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
