Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: shared_preload_libraries support on Win32?

From: <korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: shared_preload_libraries support on Win32?
Date: 2007-01-29 22:29:35
Message-ID: 1170109775.8452.192.camel@sakai.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> >> You're right - we need the copy in the postmaster (to setup shared
> >> memory and LW locks), and we need them in the backends too.
> 
> > Just make sure you don't load the libraries in bgwriter et al ...
> 
> I see that Korry's patch doesn't do that, but I'm wondering why exactly.
> In a Unix environment such libraries *would* be propagated into bgwriter
> and every other postmaster child; is there a reason for the setup on
> Windows to be different?  In particular, what about autovacuum, which
> ISTM should be as close to a standard backend as possible?

I thought about that too...  does autovacuum ever need to re-index?  If
so, it seems that it would need access to any index functions (for
function-based indexes) that might reside in a shared_preload_library.


> Either way we do it, authors of plugins used this way will have to test
> both cases (I'm glad I insisted on EXEC_BACKEND mode being testable under
> Unix ...)


And I'm glad that RequestAddinShmemSpace() and RequestAddinLWLocks()
don't complain if called after postmaster start :-)

            -- Korry


--
  Korry Douglas    korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
  EnterpriseDB      http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-01-29 23:10:57
Subject: Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib
Previous:From: googleDate: 2007-01-29 22:23:21
Subject: Re: Getting comments from schema using SQL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group