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

Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226
Date: 2009-01-02 00:28:34
Message-ID: 15791.1230856114@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ...  So Im going to mark it as
> ready for commmiter.

Has this patch been tested on Windows?  (Or more generally, with EXEC_BACKEND?)

The reason I ask is that eyeballing the code suggests a couple of major
problems in that area:

* the startup/shutdown hooks will be installed in the postmaster
process, but the patch expects them to be executed in a child process.
I think nothing will happen.

* in an EXEC_BACKEND situation, we re-execute
process_shared_preload_libraries() when starting a fresh backend
(but not in other kinds of child processes, which is why the other
problem is a problem).  This means re-executing the _PG_init function,
which will try to redefine the custom GUC variables, which will fail.
I don't think this is really a bug in this patch per se, it's a bug
in the custom-GUC support; but nonetheless it looks like a problem.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-01-02 02:43:29
Subject: Re: posix_fadvise v22
Previous:From: Mark MielkeDate: 2009-01-01 23:00:36
Subject: Re: Copyright update

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