From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum launcher using InitPostgres |
Date: | 2009-08-31 15:59:37 |
Message-ID: | 4A9BF369.8030209@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This just seems truly messy :-(. Let me see if I can find something
>>> cleaner.
I quite like the idea of splitting initialization into two phases, one
that let's you access shared catalogs, and one to bind to a database. I
didn't look into the details, though.
>> I was considering having InitPostgres be an umbrella function, so that
>> extant callers stay as today, but the various underlying pieces are
>> skipped depending on who's calling. For example I didn't like the bit
>> about starting a transaction or not depending on whether it was the
>> launcher.
>
> Yeah. If you have InitPostgres know that much about the AV launcher's
> requirements, it's not clear why it shouldn't just know everything.
> Having it return with the initial transaction still open just seems
> completely horrid.
Yeah, that sounds messy. Can AV launcher simply open a 2nd initial
transaction?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-08-31 16:07:15 | Re: autovacuum launcher using InitPostgres |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-08-31 15:54:19 | Re: autovacuum launcher using InitPostgres |