On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> Due to some "Blackfriday" commitments I'll be able to work again with this
> patch on next week.
Okay, this has proved to require broader changes than thought first. I
am marking the patch as returned with feedback.
--
Michael
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> =?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= writes:
> > typedef enum
> > {
> > ClientBackendProcess = -1,
> > CheckerProcess = 0,
> > BootstrapProcess,
>
> Uh, why would you do that (start from -1)? It makes it impossible to
> build a
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= writes:
> typedef enum
> {
> ClientBackendProcess = -1,
> CheckerProcess = 0,
> BootstrapProcess,
Uh, why would you do that (start from -1)? It makes it impossible to
build an array indexed by the enum, which might be useful --- converting
enu
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The stuff related to AuxProcType is in miscadmin.h, so one possibility
> >> is to put the new enum there. But I could see inventing a whole new
> >> header for
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The stuff related to AuxProcType is in miscadmin.h, so one possibility
>> is to put the new enum there. But I could see inventing a whole new
>> header for this, "utils/proctype.h" or so.
> I am on board for a new, d
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> This is really about consolidating a whole bunch of ad-hoc stuff.
> I don't think pgstat has any particular pride of place here. It
> should be one consumer of a common API.
>
> The stuff related to AuxProcType is in miscadmin.h, so one possibil
Michael Paquier writes:
> I was the one suggesting to Fabrizio to look at how backend types are
> evaluated in pgstat.c after an off-list discussion. Agreed that this
> result is fragile as this makes two places dependent on the process
> types. Why not simply moving all the business of pgstat_bes
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
> On 11/19/2017 04:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>>> I think this:
>>> #define IsClientBackend() \
>>> (MyBackendId != InvalidBackendId &&\
>>> !IsAutoVacuumLauncherProcess() &&\
>>> !I
On 11/19/2017 04:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> I think this:
>> #define IsClientBackend() \
>> (MyBackendId != InvalidBackendId && \
>> !IsAutoVacuumLauncherProcess() && \
>> !IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess() && \
>> !am_walsender && \
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> I think this:
> #define IsClientBackend() \
> (MyBackendId != InvalidBackendId && \
> !IsAutoVacuumLauncherProcess() && \
> !IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess() && \
> !am_walsender && \
> !IsBackgroundWorker)
> probably belo
On 11/16/2017 10:38 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Attached new version of the patch fixing issues about installcheck and
> some assertions reported before (based on Michael Paquier code):
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/30479.1510800078%40sss.pgh.pa.us#30479.1510
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Ashutosh Sharma
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Attached new version of the patch fixing issues about installcheck and
some
> > assertions reported before (based on Michael Paquier code):
> >
>
> The
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Attached new version of the patch fixing issues about installcheck and some
> assertions reported before (based on Michael Paquier code):
>
The assertion failure which i reported earlier -[1] is fixed with v11
patch. FY
Hi all,
Attached new version of the patch fixing issues about installcheck and some
assertions reported before (based on Michael Paquier code):
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/30479.1510800078%40sss.pgh.pa.us#30479.1510800...@sss.pgh.pa.us
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/201
14 matches
Mail list logo
