Re: [PATCHES] Re: [HACKERS] new patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom, any comment on this?

I believe all those patches are applied long since in current sources
(Massimo might want to check though).

I even did something about QueryCancel in vacuum yesterday...
        regards, tom lane


>> Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@cs.unitn.it> writes:
>>>> Two small patches:
>>>> 1)    make default NBuffers = DEF_MAXBACKENDS*2 as required by check in
>>>> PostmasterMain().
>> 
>> I had proposed moving NDBUFS into config.h and fixing the default a few
>> days ago, but then forgot to do it.  As things stand, if you increase
>> DEF_MAXBACKENDS at configure time, you'll get a postmaster that won't
>> start unless you give it a -B setting larger than default.  This is bad,
>> and I agree with Massimo that we ought to make sure the default NBuffers
>> is one that will work with the default MaxBackends.
>> 
>> This patch is not quite right though, since it doesn't account for the
>> other part of PostmasterMain's condition (NBuffers >= 16).  Will fix.
>> 
>>>> 2)    check for QueryCancel in the copy command. Maybe we should do the
>>>> same in vacuum command (Vadim?). 
>> 
>> I'm not too excited about adding QueryCancel support so soon before the
>> release, but the part of your patch that you didn't mention (diking out
>> the "file_opened" hack) is really a critical fix --- as the code stood
>> it would try to fclose() the same stdio file twice, which is disastrous
>> in most stdio libraries.  I applied that part of it... good catch!