Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15791.1230856114@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226 ("Alex Hunsaker" <badalex@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226
Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226 Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Alex Hunsaker" <badalex@gmail.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: