Claudio Natoli wrote:
> 
> I wrote:
> > But I'll happily concede the point, and prove it by knocking 
> > up a patch for it over the weekend (unless anyone else 
> > particularly wants to).
> 
> Occurs to me I could kill 2 birds with one stone, and also implement another
> Win32 sticking point, namely the waitpid changes for the Postmaster, by
> having win32_forkexec do one of the following:
> 
> a) - when a backend startup is indicated, add a pid/cancel_key struct
> (Backend) to this new array in shared mem
>    - when any child of the postmaster is started, also add a pid/HANDLE
> struct to a postmaster local array (or perhaps a dlllist)
> 
> b) - when any child of the postmaster is started, add a
> pid/cancel_key/HANDLE/isBackend struct to this new array in shared mem
> 
> (HANDLE for waiting on to determine child death; isBackend to separate
> BackendList backends from other children)
> 
> Choosing a over b:
>       PRO: as we've already been through, keeps the postmaster-only data
> local to the postmaster, stopping tampering from rouge backends
>       CON: yet more redundancy
> 
> Given recent conversations, I'm guessing (a), but any comments before going
> ahead and doing it?

As I understand it, the postmaster shared memory idea is good because
only the postmaster writes to it, and only the backends read from it. 
If the HANDLE works the same way, I think you should put it into the
shared memory too, hence (b).

[ FYI, I haven't seen you on IM lately.]

-- 
  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 6: Have you searched our list archives?

               http://archives.postgresql.org

Reply via email to