On 2017-03-28 03:47:50 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 28/03/17 03:31, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > On 27/03/17 19:01, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >>> Robert, Petr, either of you planning to fix this (as outlined elsewhere > >>> in the thred)? > >> > >> Oh, I didn't realize anybody was looking to me to fix this. I sort of > >> thought that it was fallout from the logical replication patch and > >> that Petr or Peter would deal with it. If that's not the case, I'm > >> not totally unwilling to take a whack at it, but I don't have much > >> personal enthusiasm for trying to figure out how to make dynamic > >> loading on the postgres binary itself work everywhere, so if it falls > >> to me to fix, it's likely to get a hard-coded check for some > >> hard-coded name. > >> > > > > It affects parallel workers same way, I'll write patch for HEAD soon, > > 9.6 probably with some delay. I'll expand the InternalBgWorkers thing > > that was added with logical replication to handle this in similar > > fashion how we do fmgrtab. > > > > Btw now that I look at the code, I guess we'll want to get rid of > bgw_main completely in HEAD given that we can't guarantee it will be > valid even for shared_preload_library libraries. For older branches I > would leave things as they are in this regard as there don't seem to be > any immediate issue for standard binaries.
As long as you fix it so culicidae is happy (in 9.6) ;). I think it's fine to just introduce bgw_builtin_id or such, and leave the bgw_main code in place in < HEAD. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
