Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This just seems truly messy :-(. Let me see if I can find something
>>> cleaner.
I quite like the idea of splitting initialization into two phases, one
that let's you access shared catalogs, and one to bind to a database. I
didn't look into the details, though.
>> I was considering having InitPostgres be an umbrella function, so that
>> extant callers stay as today, but the various underlying pieces are
>> skipped depending on who's calling. For example I didn't like the bit
>> about starting a transaction or not depending on whether it was the
>> launcher.
>
> Yeah. If you have InitPostgres know that much about the AV launcher's
> requirements, it's not clear why it shouldn't just know everything.
> Having it return with the initial transaction still open just seems
> completely horrid.
Yeah, that sounds messy. Can AV launcher simply open a 2nd initial
transaction?
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
