Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]

On Mon, 11 May 1998, at 11:14:43, Tom Lane wrote:

> Brett McCormick <brett@work.chicken.org> writes:
> > same way that the current network socket is passed -- through an execv
> > argument.  hopefully, however, the non-execv()ing fork will be in 6.4.
>
> Um, you missed the point, Brett.  David was hoping to transfer a client
> connection from the postmaster to an *already existing* backend process.
> Fork, with or without exec, solves the problem for a backend that's
> started after the postmaster has accepted the client socket.

That's what I get for jumping in on a thread I wasn't paying much
attention to begin with.