From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226 |
Date: | 2009-01-02 00:28:34 |
Message-ID: | 15791.1230856114@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ... So Im going to mark it as
> ready for commmiter.
Has this patch been tested on Windows? (Or more generally, with EXEC_BACKEND?)
The reason I ask is that eyeballing the code suggests a couple of major
problems in that area:
* the startup/shutdown hooks will be installed in the postmaster
process, but the patch expects them to be executed in a child process.
I think nothing will happen.
* in an EXEC_BACKEND situation, we re-execute
process_shared_preload_libraries() when starting a fresh backend
(but not in other kinds of child processes, which is why the other
problem is a problem). This means re-executing the _PG_init function,
which will try to redefine the custom GUC variables, which will fail.
I don't think this is really a bug in this patch per se, it's a bug
in the custom-GUC support; but nonetheless it looks like a problem.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-02 02:43:29 | Re: posix_fadvise v22 |
Previous Message | Mark Mielke | 2009-01-01 23:00:36 | Re: Copyright update |