| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Cause of "can't wait without a PROC structure" | 
| Date: | 2002-09-25 21:02:02 | 
| Message-ID: | 200209252102.g8PL22r19218@candle.pha.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Tom Lane wrote:
> I said:
> > The ordering of these shutdown hooks is the reverse of the ordering
> > of the startup initialization of the modules.  It looks like we'll
> > need to rejigger the startup ordering ... and it also looks like that's
> > going to be a rather ticklish issue.  (See comments in BaseInit and
> > InitPostgres.)  Any thoughts on how to do it?
> 
> I eventually decided that the most reasonable solution was to leave the
> startup sequence alone, and fold the ProcKill and
> ShutdownBufferPoolAccess shutdown hooks together.  This is a little ugly
> but it seems to beat the alternatives.  ShutdownBufferPoolAccess was
> effectively assuming that LWLockReleaseAll was called just before it,
> so the two modules aren't really independent anyway.
I understand.  Sometimes the dependencies are too intricate to break
apart, and you just reorder them.
-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-25 21:13:51 | Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS? | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-25 20:56:24 | Re: Cause of "can't wait without a PROC structure" |