On 2017-03-27 13:01:11 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > Robert, Petr, either of you planning to fix this (as outlined elsewhere
> > in the thred)?
> Oh, I didn't realize anybody was looking to me to fix this.

Well, it's borked in 9.6.  I'm starting to get annoyed by culicidae's
failures ;)

> I sort of thought that it was fallout from the logical replication
> patch and that Petr or Peter would deal with it.  If that's not the
> case, I'm not totally unwilling to take a whack at it, but I don't
> have much personal enthusiasm for trying to figure out how to make
> dynamic loading on the postgres binary itself work everywhere, so if
> it falls to me to fix, it's likely to get a hard-coded check for some
> hard-coded name.

I'm all for that approach - there seems very little upside in the
dynamic loading approach.  Just defining a bgw_entry_points[enum
BuiltinBGWorkerType] -> bgworker_main_type array seems to be simple
enough - it's not like we're going to add new types of builtin bgworkers
at runtime.

- Andres

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to