"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

• Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226 at 2008-12-30 16:59:09 from Alex Hunsaker

Responses

• Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226 at 2009-01-02 02:45:43 from Alex Hunsaker
• Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226 at 2009-01-02 02:59:04 from Tom Lane
• Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226 at 2009-01-03 03:20:34 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

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