| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: myProcLocks initialization |
| Date: | 2011-10-31 20:22:45 |
| Message-ID: | 8133.1320092565@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Revised patch attached. I think it would be useful to assert this
>> both at process startup time and at process shutdown, since it would
>> really be much nicer to have the process that didn't clean up fail the
>> assertion, rather than the new one that innocently inherited its slot;
>> so the attached patch takes that approach.
> Something stronger than an assertion at shutdown? Run-time test?
There's currently no evidence to suggest this will ever fire at all,
especially not in non-development builds, so an assert seems enough
to me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-31 20:43:18 | Re: Optimizing GetRunningTransactionLocks() |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-10-31 20:18:26 | Re: myProcLocks initialization |