Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Yeah, as I recall the only thing the get_new_node thingy does is assign
> a nonconflicting port number to each instance, and make sure the
> instances are all teared down at END. I don't remember now why didn't
> we just do the port check in the constructor, but we messed with that
> code a lot after the commit. Maybe there's no good reason and we should
> change that, for convenience of inheritance. As for the teardown, I
> remember trying to do that using DESTROY instead of an END block, but
> there was some problem I couldn't figure out (I think there was some
> ugly warning message because the data dir for the node was removed
> before the DESTROY for the object had the chance to run)... maybe you
> can figure that one out.
We changed that in 08af92190 --- changing it back would require
finding a different solution to the order-of-shutdown problem.
> Overall I think it'd be an improvement to use a regular constructor
> instead of the current arrangement.
Constructor si, destructor no.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
