Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Martin Pitt <martin(dot)pitt(at)ubuntu(dot)com>, Mark Shuttleworth <mark(at)ubuntu(dot)com>
Subject: Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Date: 2007-04-27 02:43:08
Message-ID: 200704270243.l3R2h8M03790@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Where are we on this?
>
> Still trying to think of a less messy solution...

OK, put in the patches hold queue for 8.4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> >> What it essentially says is that trying to clean up shared-memory
> >> state in a PG_TRY block is unsafe: you can't be certain you'll
> >> get to do it.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-04-27 02:45:49 Re: pgsql crollable cursor doesn't support one form of postgresql's cu
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-04-27 02:38:16 Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory