Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Date
Msg-id 3736.1071446251@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] fork/exec patch  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> ... Maybe we need a per-backend array in
> shared memory just for those keys.  The postmaster has to keep those
> keys anyway, so moving into shared memory might be the right solution.

The postmaster's dependence on the contents of shared memory should
ideally be zero (and it is zero, or nearly so, at the moment).
Otherwise a backend crash that clobbers shared memory poses the risk of
taking down the postmaster as well.  We can't go in that direction.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Walker/mutator prototype.
Next
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade