Re: fork/exec patch

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I don't think we ever discussed it, but it seemed logical and a minimal
> change to the code.  We already have a GUC write of non-default values
> for exec and no one had issues with that.

For the record, I think that is ugly as well :-)

Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing that using shmem is the right way
to go here -- that was merely an off-the-cuff suggestion. I'm just
saying that whatever solution we end up with, ISTM we can do better
than writing out + reading in a file for /every/ new connection.

-Neil