Magnus Hagander wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > >> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 15:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>> We keep talking about EXEC_BACKEND mode, though until recently I had > >>>> misunderstood what that meant. I also realised that I have more than > >>>> once neglected to take it into account when writing a patch - one recent > >>>> patch failed to do this. > >>>> I can't find anything coherent in docs/readme/comments to explain why it > >>>> exists and what its implications are. > >>> It exists because Windows doesn't have fork(), only the equivalent of > >>> fork-and-exec. Which means that no state variables will be inherited > >>> from the postmaster by its child processes, and any state that needs to > >>> be carried across has to be handled explicitly. You can define > >>> EXEC_BACKEND in a non-Windows build, for the purpose of testing code > >>> to see if it works in that environment. > >> OK, if its that simple then I see why its not documented. Thanks. I > >> thought there might be more to it than that. > > > > I added a little documentation at the top of > > postmaster.c::backend_forkexec(). > > Doesn't that make more sense in say, the Developer FAQ?
I figured I should put it where it is used; the developer's FAQ is for more generalized issues, I feel. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
