| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Rick Otten <rottenwindfish(at)gmail(dot)com>, ronan(dot)dunklau(at)dalibo(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | |
| Date: | 2017-08-08 20:15:15 |
| Message-ID: | 15541.1502223315@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Perhaps, for v11, we should actually make sure there's no memory context
> etc set during _PG_init() to catch such problems earlier?
I don't see much of a way to do that in the "typical" case where
the library load happens as a result of a SQL command. You can't
just say "oh, we're not in a transaction" and then later "wait,
yes we are".
Maybe we should recommend that extension authors test their libraries
in the preload scenario ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-08-08 20:18:38 | Re: your mail |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-08-08 19:57:47 | Re: signal 11 segfaults with parallel workers |