Sorry my last reply got mangled for some reason. Here it is again. > > Blame shows that this change was introduced in commit 69d903367c, > > but I could not determine the rationale from the discussion, > > so it may have been an oversight. > > I think the startup hook must run in each backend for EXEC_BACKEND, else we > won't properly initialize pointers to shared memory in that case, > right? I guess the > doc below is giving a vague warning that one should be careful what they > put in that hook.
But that could potentially be dangerous if code in the startup hook gets re-executed? I guess the doc below is giving a vague warning that one should be careful what they put in that hook. > > I added the following wording in commit 964152c: > > Thanks, I missed the doc update. Yes, that is inconsistent between platforms, > and if we must live with this behavior, should the doc give a bigger warning > about the code that goes in that hook? Thanks, I missed the doc update. Yes, that is inconsistent between platforms, and if we must live with this behavior, should the doc give a bigger warning about the code that goes in that hook? -- Sami
