>> This is a lot like what I was planning to work towards with the
>> refactoring of the forkexec code I promised to do for 8.1.
>
>Cool. BTW, have we accepted that EXEC_BACKEND is the way we're
>going to
>workaround the lack of fork() on Win32 for the foreseeable future? I
>mean, it _works_, bu
Magnus Hagander wrote:
This is a lot like what I was planning to work towards with the
refactoring of the forkexec code I promised to do for 8.1.
Cool. BTW, have we accepted that EXEC_BACKEND is the way we're going to
workaround the lack of fork() on Win32 for the foreseeable future? I
mean, it _
>While going through the usual motions needed to fork a child
>process of
>the postmaster, it occurred to me that there's a fair bit of
>duplicated
>code involved. There are also #ifdef for various situations (BeOS,
>LINUX_PROFILE, and EXEC_BACKEND), which makes the code yet
>more ugly. I
>t
While going through the usual motions needed to fork a child process of
the postmaster, it occurred to me that there's a fair bit of duplicated
code involved. There are also #ifdef for various situations (BeOS,
LINUX_PROFILE, and EXEC_BACKEND), which makes the code yet more ugly. I
think we cou
