Re: [HACKERS] removing the exec() from doexec()

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От The Hermit Hacker
Тема Re: [HACKERS] removing the exec() from doexec()
Дата
Msg-id Pine.BSF.3.96.980429232003.466D-100000@thelab.hub.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] removing the exec() from doexec()  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] removing the exec() from doexec()  (Brett McCormick <brett@work.chicken.org>)
Re: [HACKERS] removing the exec() from doexec()  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] removing the exec() from doexec()  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> No reason for the exec().  I believe the only advantage is that it gives
> us a separate process name in the 'ps' listing.  I have looked into
> simulating this.

    Under FreeBSD, there is:

setproctitle(3) - set the process title for ps 1

    This isn't available under Solaris though, last I checked...

Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: dg@illustra.com (David Gould)
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch
Следующее
От: Brett McCormick
Дата:
Сообщение: data compression/encryption