Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Aleksander Alekseev
Subject Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example
Date
Msg-id CAJ7c6TMxBSTiqw5hpqARMdpjwSr712OvDNE=sXnY0sqLFLxJwQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example
Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Nathan,

> > That being said, I still don't understand why you focus on this tiny and not
> > really important detail while the module itself is actually broken (for dynamic
> > bgworker without s_p_l) and also has some broken behaviors with regards to the
> > naptime that are way more likely to hurt third party code that was written
> > using this module as an example.
>
> Are you or Aleksander interested in helping improve this module?  I'm happy
> to help review and/or write patches.

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the problem in respect of naptime
Julien is referring to. If you know what this problem is and how to
fix it, go for it. I'll review and test the code then. I can write the
part of the patch that fixes the part regarding dynamic workers if
necessary.

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Setting restrictedtoken in pg_regress
Next
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: Avoid unncessary always true test (src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c)