| From: | <korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: shared_preload_libraries support on Win32? |
| Date: | 2007-01-29 22:29:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1170109775.8452.192.camel@sakai.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >> You're right - we need the copy in the postmaster (to setup shared
> >> memory and LW locks), and we need them in the backends too.
>
> > Just make sure you don't load the libraries in bgwriter et al ...
>
> I see that Korry's patch doesn't do that, but I'm wondering why exactly.
> In a Unix environment such libraries *would* be propagated into bgwriter
> and every other postmaster child; is there a reason for the setup on
> Windows to be different? In particular, what about autovacuum, which
> ISTM should be as close to a standard backend as possible?
I thought about that too... does autovacuum ever need to re-index? If
so, it seems that it would need access to any index functions (for
function-based indexes) that might reside in a shared_preload_library.
> Either way we do it, authors of plugins used this way will have to test
> both cases (I'm glad I insisted on EXEC_BACKEND mode being testable under
> Unix ...)
And I'm glad that RequestAddinShmemSpace() and RequestAddinLWLocks()
don't complain if called after postmaster start :-)
-- Korry
--
Korry Douglas korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-29 23:10:57 | Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib |
| Previous Message | 2007-01-29 22:23:21 | Re: Getting comments from schema using SQL |