Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process

Morning,

On 09/16/2010 04:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I agree.  I've already said my piece on how I think that stuff would
> need to be reworked to be acceptable, so we might have to agree to
> disagree on those, especially if your goal is to get something
> committed that doesn't involve a major rewrite on your end.

Just for clarification: you are referring to imessages and dynshmem 
here, right? I agree that dynshmem needs to be reworked and rethought. 
And imessages simply depends on dynshmem.

If you are referring to the bgworker stuff, I'm not quite clear about 
what I could do to make bgworker more acceptable. (Except perhaps for 
removing the dependency on imessages).

Regards

Markus Wanner