"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
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|