Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Agreed, added to the Win32 status page:
> > * remove per-backend parameter file and move into shared memory
>
> [itch] I'm not sure that's an answer either; see my comments about how
> the postmaster shouldn't depend on the conte
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed, added to the Win32 status page:
> * remove per-backend parameter file and move into shared memory
[itch] I'm not sure that's an answer either; see my comments about how
the postmaster shouldn't depend on the contents of shared memory being
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't think we ever discussed it, but it seemed logical and a minimal
> > change to the code. We already have a GUC write of non-default values
> > for exec and no one had issues with that.
>
> You can hardly claim that "no one had
Claudio Natoli wrote:
> > For example, couldn't we write this data into a particular location in
> > shared memory, and then pass that location to the child? That is still
> > ugly, slow, and prone to failure (shmem being statically sized), but
> > ISTM that the proposed implementation already poss
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:53:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> You can hardly claim that "no one had issues with that".
>
> > Don't the FSM and the system catalog cache use a similar mechanism?
>
> FSM uses a backing file to hold in
This patch makes some SGML markup more consistent and makes a small
improvement to the SSL auth docs.
Patch applied to HEAD.
-Neil
You're a committer now, Neil? Way to go! :)
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usene
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:53:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You can hardly claim that "no one had issues with that".
> Don't the FSM and the system catalog cache use a similar mechanism?
FSM uses a backing file to hold information over a database shut
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 06:53:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't think we ever discussed it, but it seemed logical and a minimal
> > change to the code. We already have a GUC write of non-default values
> > for exec and no one had issues with that.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think we ever discussed it, but it seemed logical and a minimal
> change to the code. We already have a GUC write of non-default values
> for exec and no one had issues with that.
You can hardly claim that "no one had issues with that". I compl
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Claudio Natoli wrote:
> Moreover, in general, how do we handle things like this? IMHO, I'd rather
> live with a few kludges (that don't impact the *nix code) until the Windows
> port is actually a reality
As long as it does not hurt the unix code it's not a big problem as I s
Hi all,
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> > Also has to work on Unix too for testing.
>
> Everything can not work in unix, CreateProcess() and fork()
> are different.
True (but CreateProcess and "fork followed by exec" are pretty close). I
think what Bruce is implying is that, ideally, we'd like to k
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Why not use an anonymous pipe to send data from the parent to the child
> > process?
>
> Doesn't that require the postmaster to stay around to feed that
> information into the pipe or can the postmaster just shove the data and
> continue on, and how d
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > change to the code. We already have a GUC write of non-default values
> > for exec and no one had issues with that. Of course, this one is
> > per-backend.
> >
> > Yea, we could use shared memory for this too, but I don't
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> change to the code. We already have a GUC write of non-default values
> for exec and no one had issues with that. Of course, this one is
> per-backend.
>
> Yea, we could use shared memory for this too, but I don't see a problem
> with using the file s
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think we ever discussed it, but it seemed logical and a minimal
> change to the code. We already have a GUC write of non-default values
> for exec and no one had issues with that.
For the record, I think that is ugly as well :-)
Anyway, I'm not
Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Let me add that Claudio is doing a fantastic job on this. The
> > changes are minimal and clean. I think the writing of a per-backend
> > temp file has allowed this patch to be smaller than it might have
> > been.
>
> Did we REAL
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me add that Claudio is doing a fantastic job on this. The
> changes are minimal and clean. I think the writing of a per-backend
> temp file has allowed this patch to be smaller than it might have
> been.
Did we REALLY conclude that the best way to
This patch adds proper prototypes to the walkers and mutators.
I changed the patch as Greg Stark suggested.
Kurt
Index: src/backend/catalog/dependency.c
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/backend/catalog/dependency.c
18 matches
Mail list logo
