On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:04 PM, james <ja...@mansionfamily.plus.com> wrote: >>> The point remains that you need to duplicate it into every process that >>> might >>> want to use it subsequently, so it makes sense to DuplicateHandle into the >>> parent, and then to advertise that handle value publicly so that other >>> child >>> processes can DuplicateHandle it back into their own process. >> >> Well, right now we just reopen the same object from all of the >> processes, which seems to work fine and doesn't require any of this >> complexity. The only problem I don't know how to solve is how to make >> a segment stick around for the whole postmaster lifetime. If >> duplicating the handle into the postmaster without its knowledge gets >> us there, it may be worth considering, but that doesn't seem like a >> good reason to rework the rest of the existing mechanism. > > I think one has to try this to see if it works as per the need. If it's not > urgent, I can try this early next week?
Anything we want to get into 9.4 has to be submitted by next Tuesday, but I don't know that we're going to get this into 9.4. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
