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

Re: myProcLocks initialization

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: myProcLocks initialization
Date: 2011-10-31 20:18:26
Message-ID: CA+U5nML-mi-KxWeo1pMbU+c3u1M1=xVvAq+Y+hWdRQJqueFkeQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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?

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-10-31 20:22:45
Subject: Re: myProcLocks initialization
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2011-10-31 20:15:54
Subject: Optimizing GetRunningTransactionLocks()

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