Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Background worker processes I had tested this on EXEC_BACKEND some time ago, and it worked fine, but I had neglected since then, and now I find it fails with a pretty strange message on startup. Also, Andres and I have been talking about other possible problems in that scenario (mostly that the order in which shared libraries are loaded might not be deterministic, and this would cause the whole approach to fall down).
I'm considering reverting this; but since it won't cause a visible problem unless and until a worker is loaded, leaving it in place might enable someone else to peek at it while I come up with some idea to handle the broken EXEC_BACKEND case ... -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
