| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Changeset Extraction v7.6.1 |
| Date: | 2014-02-21 13:16:59 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYD0cSSbd2cmC9AbSy9dvaY=ejPWpqOAV-wi=OsAv4j8w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I can sympathize with the "too much during init" argument, but I don't
> see how moving stuff to the first call would get rid of the problems. If
> we fail later it's going to be just as confusing.
No, it isn't. If you fail during init the use will expect the slot to
be gone. That's the reason for all of this complexity. If you fail
on first use, the user will expect the slot to still be there.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-02-21 13:27:33 | Re: Changeset Extraction v7.6.1 |
| Previous Message | Christian Kruse | 2014-02-21 13:15:09 | Re: Patch: show xid and xmin in pg_stat_activity and pg_stat_replication |