Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: autovacuum launcher using InitPostgres

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

  Heikki Linnakangas

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-08-31 16:07:15
Subject: Re: autovacuum launcher using InitPostgres
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-08-31 15:54:19
Subject: Re: autovacuum launcher using InitPostgres

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group