Re: COPYable logs status

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

> Unfortunately, there is no solution in sight for this problem, certainly 
> not one which I think can be devised and implemented simply at this 
> stage of the cycle. The solution we'd like to use, LWLocks, is not 
> workable in his context. In consequence, I don't think we have any 
> option but to shelve this item for the time being.

The idea of one pipe per process is not really workable, because it
would mean having as many pipes as backends which does not sound very
good.  But how about a mixed approach -- like have the all the backends
share a pipe, controlled by an LWLock, and the auxiliary process have a
separate pipe each?

One thing I haven't understood yet is how having multiple pipes help on
this issue.  Is the logger reading from the pipe and then writing to a
file?  (I haven't read the logger code).

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                 http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/CTMLCN8V17R4
"Endurecerse, pero jamás perder la ternura" (E. Guevara)