Re: Fixing order of resowner cleanup in 12, for Windows

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixing order of resowner cleanup in 12, for Windows
Date: 2019-05-05 23:07:52
Message-ID: 24472.1557097672@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:
> If it does produce the log message, then the attached patch should
> make it go away.

One thing I don't care for about this patch is that the original code
looked like it didn't matter what order we did the resource releases in,
and the patched code still looks like that. You're not doing future
hackers any service by failing to include a comment that explains that
DSM detach MUST BE LAST, and explaining why. Even with that, I'd only
rate it about a 75% chance that somebody won't try to add their new
resource type at the end --- but with no comment, the odds they'll
get it right are indistinguishable from zero.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steve 2019-05-06 00:54:36 pg_ssl_init
Previous Message legrand legrand 2019-05-05 22:57:09 RE: Re: Logging the feature of SQL-level read/write commits