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.

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>

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

               http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Reply via email to