On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 15:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > We keep talking about EXEC_BACKEND mode, though until recently I had > > misunderstood what that meant. I also realised that I have more than > > once neglected to take it into account when writing a patch - one recent > > patch failed to do this. > > > I can't find anything coherent in docs/readme/comments to explain why it > > exists and what its implications are. > > It exists because Windows doesn't have fork(), only the equivalent of > fork-and-exec. Which means that no state variables will be inherited > from the postmaster by its child processes, and any state that needs to > be carried across has to be handled explicitly. You can define > EXEC_BACKEND in a non-Windows build, for the purpose of testing code > to see if it works in that environment.
OK, if its that simple then I see why its not documented. Thanks. I thought there might be more to it than that. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
