On Tue, 14 May 2002, Myron Scott wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >With a little more intelligence in the manager of this table, this could
> >also solve my concern about pointer variables. Perhaps the entries
> >could include not just address/size but some type information. If the
> >manager knows "this variable is a pointer to a palloc'd string" then it
> >could do the Right Thing during fork. Not sure offhand what the
> >categories would need to be, but we could derive those if anyone has
> >cataloged the variables that get passed down from postmaster to children.
> >
> >I don't think it needs to be a hashtable --- you wouldn't ever be doing
> >lookups in it, would you? Just a simple list of things-to-copy ought to
> >do fine.
> >
> >
> I'm thinking in a threaded context where a method may need to lookup a
> global that is not passed in. But for copying, I suppose no lookups
> would be neccessary.
if we can, can we keep the whole 'threaded' concept in mind when
developing this ... if going a hashtable would be required for this, let's
go the more complete route and eliminate potential issues down the road
...
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
