[patch edited + resubmitted for review; not for committing] Hi Tom,
Advertising
figuring that, on balance, you are in fact going to prefer to take a potential future hit in duplicated work (in passing context in the fork/exec case) over moving the client auth code to PostgresMain, I've just gone ahead and made a patch that implements your BackendFork ideas... Please let me know: * if the changes to the BackendFork / SubPostmasterMain logic are more or less what you envisaged, and if you are content with them [Note: we can also roll BackendInit back into BackendFork, making BackendFork (now BackendRun?) pretty much exactly as it was before the fork/exec changes began] * if you are content with the above, whether or not you think I ought to do the same for the SSDataBase logic. I'm hoping for a negative, as the #ifdef logic is not as convoluted as that originally presented in BackendFork (ie. to me, it looks like overkill in this case), but anticipating otherwise :-) Also: * are you ok with the pgstat changes (I'm guessing yes, as you haven't mentioned them, and since these changes are pretty similar to what you suggested for BackendFork) Cheers, Claudio --- Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see <a href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html";>http://www.memetrics.com/em ailpolicy.html</a>
diff5c2.out
Description: Binary data
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
