Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> One thing I was wondering about earlier today is whether libxml isn't
>> expecting NULL-return-on-failure from the malloc-substitute routine.
>> If we take control away from it unexpectedly, I wouldn't be a bit
>> surprised if its d
Tom Lane escribió:
> One thing I was wondering about earlier today is whether libxml isn't
> expecting NULL-return-on-failure from the malloc-substitute routine.
> If we take control away from it unexpectedly, I wouldn't be a bit
> surprised if its data structures are left corrupt. This might lea
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> + void
> + AtEOXact_xml(void)
> + {
> + if (LibxmlContext == NULL)
> + return;
> +
> + MemoryContextDelete(LibxmlContext);
> + LibxmlContext = NULL;
> +
> + xmlCleanupParser();
> + }
[ blink... ] Shouldn't that be the othe
Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Perhaps a better idea is to create a separate LibxmlContext memcxt,
> > child of QueryContext, and have xml_palloc etc always use that. That
> > way it won't be reset between calls. It probably also means we could
> > wire xml r
I wrote:
> I'll respin my patch this way...
Third time's the charm?
regards, tom lane
binFKkWVCJKov.bin
Description: archiver-shutdown-3.patch
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:29:53AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:
> From: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >>I don't think of a good idea. However, since our document has announced
> >>officially, saying >=VC7.1. Therefore, I think that it is satisfactory.
> >
> >Ah, good point, I forgot ab
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 10:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> So we should put back the behavior
> my last patch removed of aborting archiving immediately on
> postmaster death.
Excellent
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
---(end of broadcast)--
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 10:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Something I'm still wondering is about the archiver/logger combination.
> > What happens if a postmaster is stopped by the user and the archiver is
> > still running, and the user starts a new postma
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe we should go back to the plan of having the postmaster
>> wait for the archiver to exit.
> Yeah, that seems the safest to me -- the problem is that it complicates
> the shutdown sequence a fair bit, because postmaster must act
>
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 12:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Yeah, that seems the safest to me -- the problem is that it complicates
> the shutdown sequence a fair bit, because postmaster must act
> differently depending on whether archiving is enabled or not: wait for
> bgwriter exit if disabled, o
From: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I don't think of a good idea. However, since our document has announced
officially, saying >=VC7.1. Therefore, I think that it is satisfactory.
Ah, good point, I forgot about that.
But - if we do that, why do we need that IF check *at all*?
It is
Tom Lane wrote:
> There was discussion of having a lock file for the archiver, but
> it's still an open issue. I'm not sure how to solve the problem
> of stale lockfiles --- unlike the postmaster, the archiver can't
> assume that it's the only live process with the postgres userid.
> For example,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:15:53AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:
> From: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >>Condition understanding of '>=' is not made as for namke of VC6 to a
> >>regrettable thing, but it causes an error to it:-(
> >>So, except all thought that it was good.
> >
> >H
From: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Condition understanding of '>=' is not made as for namke of VC6 to a
regrettable thing, but it causes an error to it:-(
So, except all thought that it was good.
Hmm. Crap.
Perhaps there's something else we can check on? Like a feature or
enviro
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Something I'm still wondering is about the archiver/logger combination.
> What happens if a postmaster is stopped by the user and the archiver is
> still running, and the user starts a new postmaster? This would launch
> a new archiver and logger; and t
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:52:15PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:
> Hi.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> >On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:01:20PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:
> >>Hi Magnus, and Dave.
> >>
> >>It seems that it is different in nmake alth
Hi.
- Original Message -
From: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:01:20PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:
Hi Magnus, and Dave.
It seems that it is different in nmake although the initial value of
VisualStudio is embedding. Then, It sees a reference probl
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:01:20PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:
> Hi Magnus, and Dave.
>
> It seems that it is different in nmake although the initial value of
> VisualStudio is embedding. Then, It sees a reference problem by
> the dll independent. Therefore, embedding considers like an ideal.
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hence, attached revised patch ...
Looks good.
Something I'm still wondering is about the archiver/logger combination.
What happens if a postmaster is stopped by the user and the archiver is
still running, and the user starts a new postmaster? This would launch
a new archiver a
19 matches
Mail list logo
