Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com wrote:
>> 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?
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
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-01-29 20:59:55|
|Subject: Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib|
|Previous:||From: Henry B. Hotz||Date: 2007-01-29 20:44:51|
|Subject: Re: 10 weeks to feature freeze (Pending Work)|