From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Cause of "can't wait without a PROC structure" |
Date: | 2002-09-25 21:02:02 |
Message-ID: | 200209252102.g8PL22r19218@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I said:
> > The ordering of these shutdown hooks is the reverse of the ordering
> > of the startup initialization of the modules. It looks like we'll
> > need to rejigger the startup ordering ... and it also looks like that's
> > going to be a rather ticklish issue. (See comments in BaseInit and
> > InitPostgres.) Any thoughts on how to do it?
>
> I eventually decided that the most reasonable solution was to leave the
> startup sequence alone, and fold the ProcKill and
> ShutdownBufferPoolAccess shutdown hooks together. This is a little ugly
> but it seems to beat the alternatives. ShutdownBufferPoolAccess was
> effectively assuming that LWLockReleaseAll was called just before it,
> so the two modules aren't really independent anyway.
I understand. Sometimes the dependencies are too intricate to break
apart, and you just reorder them.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-25 21:13:51 | Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-25 20:56:24 | Re: Cause of "can't wait without a PROC structure" |