On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Robert Haas 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, rather than the new
Simon Riggs writes:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Robert Haas 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
>> asse
Robert Haas 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 innocently inherited it
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas 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 ha
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas 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 empt
Robert Haas 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 newly initialized
>
