Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: myProcLocks initialization

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: myProcLocks initialization
Date: 2011-10-31 20:22:45
Message-ID: 8133.1320092565@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Revised patch attached. I think it would be useful to assert this
>> both at process startup time and at process shutdown, since it would
>> really be much nicer to have the process that didn't clean up fail the
>> assertion, rather than the new one that innocently inherited its slot;
>> so the attached patch takes that approach.

> Something stronger than an assertion at shutdown? Run-time test?

There's currently no evidence to suggest this will ever fire at all,
especially not in non-development builds, so an assert seems enough
to me.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-10-31 20:43:18
Subject: Re: Optimizing GetRunningTransactionLocks()
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2011-10-31 20:18:26
Subject: Re: myProcLocks initialization

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group