[Thanks to Tom + Bruce]
For the remaining comments...
The number of FIXME or This is ugly comments doesn't ease my mind
about this patch :-) How many of these issues do you plan to resolve?
All of them, as we go along. Treat this as a first step.
- break;
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That one I can answer --- it's a bootstrapping issue: we can't use
LWLocks until we have a PGProc (*MyProc), and we can't set that up
without looking in the ShmemIndex for the related data structures.
So ShmemIndex needs to use a more primitive lock type.
Bruce Momjian writes:
Peter indicated it was not valid docbook and wanted only the relivant
parts, but it looked OK to me. Peter?
That's what I said, that's what I meant.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free
Bruce Momjian writes:
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
I think this patch is an older version of the other one and should not be
applied.
Bruce Momjian writes:
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
Please don't.
Add a new example if you want, but don't overload existing examples with
Hi Neil,
No. This isn't necessary (and what action would it take in any
case?).
It should write a log message. I'm not sure why this /shouldn't/ be
done: if an operation fails, we should log that failure. This is
standard practise.
Fair enough. Will do (although, I'd point out that
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My next question would have been to ask whether switching to a
spinlock here will be a performance problem. In looking at the code,
it seems we only hold the ShmemIndexLock for a long time (hundreds of
instructions multiple system calls) while
David Fetter wrote:
Kind people,
I hope this one actually does what Tom said. It appears to work :)
I've modified this example a little, but it's in there now.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the
Bruce Momjian wrote:
He is reminding folks about double-backslashes in a relivant place
--- makes sense to me.
The relevant place would be far below where it already says:
Note: Keep in mind that an escape's leading \ will need to be doubled
when entering the pattern as an SQL string
David Fetter wrote:
With all due respect, Peter, it is only implicit in the docs, and
that is not always good enough. An explicit example will help, as
Sure, I'm just pointing out the most appropriate place to put it.
---(end of broadcast)---
Claudio Natoli wrote:
(circa line 335 of ipc/shmem.c:)
[snip]
Doesn't this function still acquire ShmemIndexLock? (i.e. why was this
comment changed?)
AFAICS this is just whitespace differences.
With the exception of that missing break (Bruce, I guess it goes without
saying, but
Patch withdrawn. Author will resubmit new version.
---
Claudio Natoli wrote:
This patch is the next step towards (re)allowing fork/exec.
Bruce, I've cleaned up the parts we discussed, and, pending objections from
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Peter indicated it was not valid docbook and wanted only the relivant
parts, but it looked OK to me. Peter?
That's what I said, that's what I meant.
Well, I can't see anything wrong with the SGML, and you are not telling
me what is wrong, so
Claudio Natoli wrote:
Resubmission, incorporating Neil Conway's comments and some minor
corrections.
I am now thinking we have to remove pgsql/data/pgsql_tmp
unconditionally:
***
*** 1217,1224
{
while ((db_de =
14 matches
Mail list logo
