On Tue, 14 May 2002, Myron Scott wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >With a little more intelligence in the manager of this table, this could
> >also solve my concern about pointer variables. Perhaps the entries
> >could include not just address/size but some type information. If the
> >m
Mark (mlw) ... could you generate a listing of those variables you feel
would need to be moved to a 'global structure' and post that to the list?
That would at least give us a starting point, instead of both sides
guessing at what is/would be involved ...
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>With a little more intelligence in the manager of this table, this could
>also solve my concern about pointer variables. Perhaps the entries
>could include not just address/size but some type information. If the
>manager knows "this variable is a pointer to a palloc'd str
Myron Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another suggestion might be to create a global hashtable that stores
> the size and pointer to global structures for each subsection. Each
> subsection can define its own globals structure and register them with
> the hashtable.
Hmm ... now *that* is an
Tom Lane wrote:
>Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>What would your opinion be of some hack with macros, like
>>
>
>>#if (Win32 or THREADED)
>>#define GLOBAL_ pg_globals.
>>#else
>>#define GLOBAL_
>>#endif
>>
>
>>and then use global variables as
>>
>
>>GLOBAL_globvar
>>
>
>>At least
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I understood it the idea was to put the stuff, the
> backends inherit from the postmaster, into a centralized
> place, instead of having it spread out all over the place.
> What's wrong with that?
The main objection to it
Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Although this config file stuff is small potatoes compared to the
> > Win32 stuff as recently discussed. And for that, please understand
> > that most of the developers here consider Win32 an inferior server
> > platform. In fact, Win3
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What would your opinion be of some hack with macros, like
> #if (Win32 or THREADED)
> #define GLOBAL_ pg_globals.
> #else
> #define GLOBAL_
> #endif
> and then use global variables as
> GLOBAL_globvar
> At least in my opinion that would increase bot
On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 04:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Although this config file stuff is small potatoes compared to the
> > Win32 stuff as recently discussed. And for that, please understand
> > that most of the developers here consider Win32 an inferior server
> Actually, even for those that wuldn't need the patch ... as long as the
> "default behaviour" doesn't change, and unless there are no valid
> technical arguments around it, there is no reason why a patch shouldn't be
> included ...
Unless it's going to interfere with implementing the general ca
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
> But understand that those who don't need the functionality are likely not not
> be thrilled by changes to a currently stable codebase. Although this config
> file stuff is small potatoes compared to the Win32 stuff as recently
> discussed. And for that,
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Although this config file stuff is small potatoes compared to the
> Win32 stuff as recently discussed. And for that, please understand
> that most of the developers here consider Win32 an inferior server
> platform. In fact, Win32 _is_ an inferior server
[trimmed cc list, but left on HACKERS due to the nature of the subject (which
was changed]
On Monday 13 May 2002 10:56 am, mlw wrote:
> Iavor Raytchev wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > let's see some code.
> > I do not feel neither like 'asking for permisson', nor like 'proving'
> > anyth
13 matches
Mail list logo
