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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-10-31 20:43:18 Re: Optimizing GetRunningTransactionLocks()
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2011-10-31 20:18:26 Re: myProcLocks initialization