On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 at 01:24, Jaime Casanova
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 01:32:26PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 at 03:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Haas writes:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >> I'm not very comfortable about the
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 01:32:26PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 at 03:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Robert Haas writes:
> > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> I'm not very comfortable about the idea of having the postmaster set
> > >> child processes' latch
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 at 03:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm not very comfortable about the idea of having the postmaster set
> >> child processes' latches ... that doesn't sound terribly safe from the
> >> standpoint of not al
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not very comfortable about the idea of having the postmaster set
>> child processes' latches ... that doesn't sound terribly safe from the
>> standpoint of not allowing the postmaster to mess with shared memory
>> state
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> David Steele writes:
> > On 1/19/21 1:42 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> My suggestion, which I'm happy to post in patch form if you think it's
> >> reasonable
>
> > Tom, Robert, and thoughts on the proposals in [1]?
> > https://www.postgresql.org/m
David Steele writes:
> On 1/19/21 1:42 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> My suggestion, which I'm happy to post in patch form if you think it's
>> reasonable
> Tom, Robert, and thoughts on the proposals in [1]?
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGRY4nyNfscmQiZBCNT7cBYnQxJLAAVCGz%2BGZAQDAco1Fbb0
On 1/19/21 1:42 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 12:44, Craig Ringer
mailto:craig.rin...@enterprisedb.com>>
wrote:
> We're about halfway there already, see 7e784d1dc. I didn't
do the
> other half because it wasn't necessary to the problem, but
e
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 12:44, Craig Ringer
wrote:
>
> > We're about halfway there already, see 7e784d1dc. I didn't do the
>> > other half because it wasn't necessary to the problem, but exposing
>> > the shutdown state more fully seems reasonable.
>>
>
> Excellent, I'll take a look. Thanks.
>
T
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, 02:01 Robert Haas, wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:56 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I've wanted this in the past, too, so +1 from me.
> >
> > I dunno, this seems pretty scary and easily abusable. There's not all
> > that much that can be done safely in ProcessInterrupts(), a
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:56 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > I've wanted this in the past, too, so +1 from me.
>
> I dunno, this seems pretty scary and easily abusable. There's not all
> that much that can be done safely in ProcessInterrupts(), and we should
> not be encouraging extensions to think they
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:00 AM Craig Ringer
> wrote:
>> A few times lately I've been doing things in extensions that've made me want
>> to be able to run my own code whenever InterruptPending is true and
>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() calls ProcessInterrupts()
> I've wanted t
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:00 AM Craig Ringer
wrote:
> A few times lately I've been doing things in extensions that've made me want
> to be able to run my own code whenever InterruptPending is true and
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() calls ProcessInterrupts()
I've wanted this in the past, too, so +1 fr
12 matches
Mail list logo
