On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I'd like to propose the attached patch, which initializes each
PGPROC's myProcLocks just once at postmaster
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Revised patch attached. I think it would be useful to assert this
both at process startup time and at process shutdown, since it would
really be much nicer to have the process that didn't clean up fail the
assertion, rather than the new one that
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Revised patch attached. I think it would be useful to assert this
both at process startup time and at process shutdown, since it would
really be much nicer to have the process
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Revised patch attached. I think it would be useful to assert this
both at process startup time and at process shutdown, since it would
really be much nicer to have the process that didn't clean up fail the
assertion,
I'd like to propose the attached patch, which initializes each
PGPROC's myProcLocks just once at postmaster startup, rather than
every time the PGPROC is handed out to a backend. These lists should
always be emptied before a backend shuts down, so a newly initialized
backend will find the lists
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I'd like to propose the attached patch, which initializes each
PGPROC's myProcLocks just once at postmaster startup, rather than
every time the PGPROC is handed out to a backend. These lists should
always be emptied before a backend shuts down, so a
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I'd like to propose the attached patch, which initializes each
PGPROC's myProcLocks just once at postmaster startup, rather than
every time the PGPROC is handed out to a backend.