"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think it's way too late in the beta cycle for significant changes in
>> the fork mechanism ...

> I realise it's late in the beta. But all the actually *complicated* code
> in this patch is in the first patch - the splitting up of the
> CreateProcess/ResumeThread steps and the WSADuplicateSocket code. The
> part that moves the param file -> shared memory is a very small and
> simple part of the patch.

Maybe so, but it also puts the final nail in the coffin of the illusion
that testing EXEC_BACKEND behavior on Unix will give any confidence
about not having broken the code on Windows.  Also I think your thumb is
on the scales a bit because the initial patch is doing more than it had
to in this area (you didn't need to invent struct BackendParameters,
did you?)

It's the increase in variance between the Unix and Windows code paths
that's really bothering me.  We went into this project on the promise
that there weren't going to be thousands of lines of #ifdef WIN32 stuff,
and I'm not happy in the least with the way postmaster.c looks now, let
alone after applying this patch.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to