From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, rse(at)engelschall(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish |
Date: | 2006-08-05 02:05:52 |
Message-ID: | 24165.1154743552@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> In any case, the PG_init proposal neither adds nor takes away ability
>> to do stuff immediately post-fork, so I think that's an orthogonal
>> consideration.
> So is the only question whether there's a need to do stuff pre-fork?
That's not a question, that's a well-established fact --- pl/R certainly
needs it, and any other library that has expensive setup work that can
propagate through a fork does too.
I think adding a hook to allow a postmaster-preloaded library to execute
some work immediately post-fork is a separate consideration. Feel free
to propose it if you want, but I don't see what it's got to do with the
patch on the table.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gopal Krishna | 2006-08-05 05:37:54 | BUG #2564: configuring secondry database as primary in replication. |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2006-08-05 01:38:49 | Re: [BUGS] Patch to allow C extension modules to initialize/finish |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2006-08-05 02:17:21 | Re: 8.2 features status |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-05 01:58:08 | Re: 8.2 features status |