Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >>>> It seems that init_irels() should be called after
> >>>> InitializeTransactionSystem() was called.
> >> Can we just swap the order of the RelationCacheInitialize() and
> >> InitializeTransactionSystem() calls in InitPostgres? If that
> >> works, I'd have no objection.
> > It doesn't work. InitializeTransactionSystem() requires
> > pg_log/pg_variable relations which are already built in
> > RelationCacheInitialize().
> OK. Second proposal: do the init_irels() call in
> RelationCacheInitializePhase2(). I've just looked through the
> other stuff that's done in between, and I don't think any of it
> needs valid relcache entries.
Oops, I neglected to reply "agreed", sorry.
It would be much safer for init_irels() to be called
in a proper transaction than the current implementation.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-01-06 00:47:39|
|Subject: Re: Isn't init_irels() dangerous ? |
|Previous:||From: Alfonso Peniche||Date: 2001-01-06 00:18:48|
|Subject: ODBC 7.x for windows|