Re: fork/exec
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: fork/exec |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 17270.1075682672@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: fork/exec (Claudio Natoli <claudio.natoli@memetrics.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Claudio Natoli <claudio.natoli@memetrics.com> writes: > If you like, I'll quickly provide a reversion of the BackendRun/Init split, > and perhaps implement a "SubBootstrapMain"-ism... but this doesn't really > help things overall. Is it at least a better point to start from? I'd say think first and code later. Do we want to reunify those routines, or is there some purpose in having a split? Can't see what offhand, but the whole problem is this code has gotten away from us complexity-wise. We should first think about what the structure ought to be. One thought I had was that there should be a common subroutine to do the stuff that a new postmaster subprocess needs to do immediately at startup. This includes setting IsUnderPostmaster, MyProcPid, on_exit_reset in the fork() case, reloading global variables in the exec() case, and maybe a couple other things I've forgotten. We've allowed that code to get duplicated across several places now. I had been thinking that this was solely an issue for the exec case (and thus that hiding it in a SubPostmasterMain layer would solve the problem), but really there are several critical things that have to happen there in the fork case as well. We could have a PostmasterChildSetup routine that is called in both cases, and behaves slightly differently in each case, but once it returns the overall state of the new subprocess is the same in both cases. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: