Re: logical replication launcher crash on buildfarm

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: logical replication launcher crash on buildfarm
Date: 2017-03-27 17:05:24
Message-ID: 20170327170524.owvs6jiz5wor5qks@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-03-27 13:01:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Robert, Petr, either of you planning to fix this (as outlined elsewhere
> > in the thred)?
>
> Oh, I didn't realize anybody was looking to me to fix this.

Well, it's borked in 9.6. I'm starting to get annoyed by culicidae's
failures ;)

> I sort of thought that it was fallout from the logical replication
> patch and that Petr or Peter would deal with it. If that's not the
> case, I'm not totally unwilling to take a whack at it, but I don't
> have much personal enthusiasm for trying to figure out how to make
> dynamic loading on the postgres binary itself work everywhere, so if
> it falls to me to fix, it's likely to get a hard-coded check for some
> hard-coded name.

I'm all for that approach - there seems very little upside in the
dynamic loading approach. Just defining a bgw_entry_points[enum
BuiltinBGWorkerType] -> bgworker_main_type array seems to be simple
enough - it's not like we're going to add new types of builtin bgworkers
at runtime.

- Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-03-27 17:30:11 Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-03-27 17:01:11 Re: logical replication launcher crash on buildfarm