Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Date
Msg-id 200704270243.l3R2h8M03790@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Where are we on this?
> 
> Still trying to think of a less messy solution...

OK, put in the patches hold queue for 8.4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


> 
> >> What it essentially says is that trying to clean up shared-memory
> >> state in a PG_TRY block is unsafe: you can't be certain you'll
> >> get to do it.
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql crollable cursor doesn't support one form of postgresql's cu