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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers