On 28/03/17 04:46, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>> Btw now that I look at the code, I guess we'll want to get rid of
>>> bgw_main completely in HEAD given that we can't guarantee it will be
>>> valid even for shared_preload_library libraries. For older branches I
>>> would leave things as they are in this regard as there don't seem to be
>>> any immediate issue for standard binaries.
>>
>> As long as you fix it so culicidae is happy (in 9.6) ;). I think it's
>> fine to just introduce bgw_builtin_id or such, and leave the bgw_main
>> code in place in < HEAD.
>
> I wasn't thinking of introducing bgw_builtin_id. My idea was just
> along the lines of
>
> if (bgw_library_name == NULL && bgw_function_name != NULL)
> {
> if (strcmp(bgw_function_name, "ParallelQueryMain") == 0)
> ParallelQueryMain(blah);
> else if (strcmp(bgw_function_name, "LogicalReplicationMain") == 0)
> LogicalReplicationMain(blah);
> }
>
> I think something like that is certainly better for the back-branches,
> because it doesn't cause an ABI break. But I think it would also be
> fine for master.
> I had something slightly more complex like the attached in mind. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
0001-Remove-bgw_main-from-bgworker-and-always-use-library.patch
Description: binary/octet-stream
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
