On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think Alvaro's suggestion is better. It's shorter, and makes clear
>> that at most one will be started.
> OK cool. Here are patches for 9.3 and master respecting those comments.
T
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think Alvaro's suggestion is better. It's shorter, and makes clear
> that at most one will be started.
OK cool. Here are patches for 9.3 and master respecting those comments.
Regards,
--
Michael
20130814_bgworker_refactor_93_v2.patch
De
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> maybe_start_bgworker() in postmaster.c
>> do_start_bgworker() in postmaster.c
>> StartBackgroundWorker() in bgworker.c
> This formulation is fine, th
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> maybe_start_bgworker() in postmaster.c
> do_start_bgworker() in postmaster.c
> StartBackgroundWorker() in bgworker.c
This formulation is fine, thanks. Instead of maybe_start_bgworker,
what about start_bgworker_i
Robert Haas escribió:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >> That seems more mess than just keeping that function in postmaster.c.
> >> I agree with moving the other one.
> > Please find attached a patch for t
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> That seems more mess than just keeping that function in postmaster.c.
>> I agree with moving the other one.
> Please find attached a patch for that can be applied on master branch.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> That seems more mess than just keeping that function in postmaster.c.
> I agree with moving the other one.
Please find attached a patch for that can be applied on master branch.
do_start_bgworker is renamed to StartBackgroundWorker and moved
Amit Kapila escribió:
>
> On Friday, August 02, 2013 4:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Amit kapila
> >> wrote:
> >>> 2. Shouldn't function
> >>> do_start_bgworker()/StartOneBackgroundWorker(void) be moved t
On Friday, August 02, 2013 4:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Amit kapila wrote:
>>> 2. Shouldn't function
>>> do_start_bgworker()/StartOneBackgroundWorker(void) be moved to
bgworker.c
>>> as similar functions Aut
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Amit kapila
> wrote:
> > 2. Shouldn't function
> > do_start_bgworker()/StartOneBackgroundWorker(void) be moved to bgworker.c
> >as similar functions AutoVacWorkerMain()/PgArchiverMain() are in
> their respe
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Amit kapila wrote:
> 1. Bgworker.c -
> FindRegisteredWorkerBySlotNumber()
> {
> ..
> /*
> * Copy contents of worker list into shared memory. Record the
> * shared memory slot assigned to each worker. This ensu
While going through below commit, few doubts/observations:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=7f7485a0cde92aa4ba235a1ffe4dda0ca0b6cc9a
1. Bgworker.c -
FindRegisteredWorkerBySlotNumber()
{
..
/*
* Copy contents of worke
12 matches
Mail list logo
