Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 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).
> > 
> > But the postmaster needs to use the HANDLE, hence not (b).
> That's where I was unclear.  If the postmaster has to read the HANDLE,
> we are better with keeping it in local memory (a).

Only the postmaster will need these HANDLEs. Hence, why a local array for
this in (a).

(a) it is then. Figured as much, and starting working on it anyway :-)

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

Funny. Was just thinking of asking you the same thing. I'm on nearly *all*
the time, but haven't seen you pop up recently... hmm.


Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see 

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to