| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robbie Harwood <rharwood(at)redhat(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH v19] GSSAPI encryption support |
| Date: | 2018-12-03 21:55:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=2EQgjRTo4vxCzziwQ_R0UnExPpXcfz7_eY2J4t7mbc-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:20 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> (and I have to wonder- if we want nearly all callers of
> WaitLatch/WaitLatchOrSocket to use WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH, maybe we should
> make that the default and allow it to be overridden..? ...
That is what I proposed. It was Heikki who talked me into the opt-in
solution, but using an assertion to make sure you handle it one way or
the other:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6417314e-93d5-ed2d-9012-8d6e9ed21778%40iki.fi
Perhaps I should have sought more opinions. Please feel free to start
a new thread on that if you don't like the way it was done.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-12-03 22:50:19 | don't mark indexes invalid unnecessarily |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-12-03 21:20:47 | Re: [PATCH v19] GSSAPI encryption support |