From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw uninterruptible during connection establishment / ProcSignalBarrier |
Date: | 2022-12-29 21:37:45 |
Message-ID: | 610825.1672349865@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The header idea is a little bit sneaky (IIUC: a header that is part of
> the core tree, but can't be used by core and possibly needs special
> treatment in 'headercheck' to get the right include search path, can
> only be used by libpqwalreceiver et al which are allowed to link to
> libpq), but I think it is compatible with other goals we have
> discussed in other threads. I think in the near future we'll probably
> remove the concept of non-threaded server builds (as proposed before
> in the post HP-UX 10 cleanup thread, with patches, but not quite over
> the line yet). Then I think the server could be allowed to link libpq
> directly? And at that point this code wouldn't be sneaky anymore and
> could optionally move into a .c. Does that makes sense?
I don't like the idea of linking libpq directly into the backend.
It should remain a dynamically-loaded library to avoid problems
during software updates.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-12-29 21:40:13 | Re: perl 5.36, C99, -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wshadow=compatible-local |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-12-29 21:37:19 | Re: BUG #17717: Regression in vacuumdb (15 is slower than 10/11 and possible memory issue) |