Re: [PATCHES] Re: [HACKERS] new patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom, any comment on this?

I believe all those patches are applied long since in current sources
(Massimo might want to check though).

I even did something about QueryCancel in vacuum yesterday...

regards, tom lane

>> Massimo Dal Zotto <dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it> writes:
>>>> Two small patches:
>>>> 1) make default NBuffers = DEF_MAXBACKENDS*2 as required by check in
>>>> PostmasterMain().
>>
>> I had proposed moving NDBUFS into config.h and fixing the default a few
>> days ago, but then forgot to do it. As things stand, if you increase
>> DEF_MAXBACKENDS at configure time, you'll get a postmaster that won't
>> start unless you give it a -B setting larger than default. This is bad,
>> and I agree with Massimo that we ought to make sure the default NBuffers
>> is one that will work with the default MaxBackends.
>>
>> This patch is not quite right though, since it doesn't account for the
>> other part of PostmasterMain's condition (NBuffers >= 16). Will fix.
>>
>>>> 2) check for QueryCancel in the copy command. Maybe we should do the
>>>> same in vacuum command (Vadim?).
>>
>> I'm not too excited about adding QueryCancel support so soon before the
>> release, but the part of your patch that you didn't mention (diking out
>> the "file_opened" hack) is really a critical fix --- as the code stood
>> it would try to fclose() the same stdio file twice, which is disastrous
>> in most stdio libraries. I applied that part of it... good catch!