Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226
Date
Msg-id 15791.1230856114@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226  ("Alex Hunsaker" <badalex@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226  ("Alex Hunsaker" <badalex@gmail.com>)
Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Alex Hunsaker" <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
> ...  So Im going to mark it as
> ready for commmiter.

Has this patch been tested on Windows?  (Or more generally, with EXEC_BACKEND?)

The reason I ask is that eyeballing the code suggests a couple of major
problems in that area:

* the startup/shutdown hooks will be installed in the postmaster
process, but the patch expects them to be executed in a child process.
I think nothing will happen.

* in an EXEC_BACKEND situation, we re-execute
process_shared_preload_libraries() when starting a fresh backend
(but not in other kinds of child processes, which is why the other
problem is a problem).  This means re-executing the _PG_init function,
which will try to redefine the custom GUC variables, which will fail.
I don't think this is really a bug in this patch per se, it's a bug
in the custom-GUC support; but nonetheless it looks like a problem.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Mielke
Date:
Subject: Re: Copyright update
Next
From: "Robert Haas"
Date:
Subject: Re: posix_fadvise v22