I've already tried to put the exec back. But then I hit a problem with 
"MyProcPort" which is not initialised in the backend and make the 
backend crash. I've also found that "MyCancelKey" is set in postmaster. 
Are there any others ? 

Regarding the old code (6.3.2), there have been a lot of change in 
DoBackend/DoExec. I really need some expert advice on what to do.


	cyril


>> 	Hi alls
>> 
>> 	I'm working on a port of postgres on BeOS (www.be.com). BeOS is not 
>> a real UNIX, but it provide a subset of the posix API. At this stage 
>> I've a working version ofit. But since 6.4.2, I've a lot of problems 
>> (dynamic loading doesn't work any more...) with the fact that 
>> postgresmain is call directly instead of the old exec method. BeOS 
>> really don't like to do a lot of thing after a fork and before an 
exec 
>> :=(. 
>> 	I would like to know how hard it would be to add the exec call. As 
>> I understand it, I have to get back all global variables and shared 
>> memory and perhaps doing something with sockets/file descriptors ? 
I've 
>> a ready solution for shared memory but I need some help regarding 
the 
>> others points.
>
>You can put back the exec fairly easily.  You just need to pass the
>proper parameters, and change the fork to an exec.  You can look at 
the
>older code that did the exec for an example, and #ifdef the exec() 
back
>into the code.

Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:22:04 CEST
"Cyril VELTER" <cyril@mail.micronet.fr>
Re: [HACKERS] BeOS port
[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> I've already tried to put the exec back. But then I hit a problem with 
> "MyProcPort" which is not initialised in the backend and make the 
> backend crash. I've also found that "MyCancelKey" is set in postmaster. 
> Are there any others ? 
> 
> Regarding the old code (6.3.2), there have been a lot of change in 
> DoBackend/DoExec. I really need some expert advice on what to do.
> 

I recommend you get anonymous cvs access(see cvs faq on web site) do a
log to show changes to postgres.c and postmaster.c, and you will find
the exec was removed in one or two big patches.  Then do a cvs diff and
see the changes made, and try and merge them into the current code with
ifdef's.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:30:51 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] BeOS port
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Regarding the old code (6.3.2), there have been a lot of change in 
>> DoBackend/DoExec. I really need some expert advice on what to do.

> I recommend you get anonymous cvs access(see cvs faq on web site) do a
> log to show changes to postgres.c and postmaster.c, and you will find
> the exec was removed in one or two big patches.  Then do a cvs diff and
> see the changes made, and try and merge them into the current code with
> ifdef's.

He's right though: there have been subsequent changes that depend on
not doing an exec().  Offhand I only recall MyCancelKey --- that is set
in the postmaster process just before fork(), and the backend simply
assumes that it's got the right value.

The straightforward solution (invent another backend command line switch
to pass the cancel key) would not be a very good idea, since that would
expose the cancel key to prying eyes.

If BeOS does not have the ability to support fork without exec, does it
have some other way of achieving the same result?  Threads maybe?
(But Postgres is hardly the only common daemon that uses fork without
exec; sendmail comes to mind, for example.  So it seems like the real
answer is to beat up the BeOS folks about fixing their inadequate Unix
support...)

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:35:18 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] BeOS port 
On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 10:35:18AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Regarding the old code (6.3.2), there have been a lot of change in 
> >> DoBackend/DoExec. I really need some expert advice on what to do.
> 
> > I recommend you get anonymous cvs access(see cvs faq on web site) do a
> > log to show changes to postgres.c and postmaster.c, and you will find
> > the exec was removed in one or two big patches.  Then do a cvs diff and
> > see the changes made, and try and merge them into the current code with
> > ifdef's.
> 
> He's right though: there have been subsequent changes that depend on
> not doing an exec().  Offhand I only recall MyCancelKey --- that is set
> in the postmaster process just before fork(), and the backend simply
> assumes that it's got the right value.
> 
> The straightforward solution (invent another backend command line switch
> to pass the cancel key) would not be a very good idea, since that would
> expose the cancel key to prying eyes.
> 
> If BeOS does not have the ability to support fork without exec, does it
> have some other way of achieving the same result?  Threads maybe?
> (But Postgres is hardly the only common daemon that uses fork without
> exec; sendmail comes to mind, for example.  So it seems like the real
> answer is to beat up the BeOS folks about fixing their inadequate Unix
> support...)

	I heard that!  I work in Be's QA department.  In fact, our bug
database got transferred to a Postgres/PHP/Apache system a few months
ago, running on Linux.  Although I'm pretty much of the mind that BeOS
isn't a server OS, it would be interesting to see BeOS running postgres
as a server.
	If you can tell me specifically what the problem is, I can pass
it along to the Kernel team.


Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:49:03 -0700
Adam Haberlach <haberlaa@ricochet.net>
Re: [HACKERS] BeOS port