Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-06-03 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >>> In short, I'd vote for putting this change in HEAD, but I see no need to >>> back-patch. >> >> OK, fine for me. > > Done. Thanks you. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing

Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-06-03 Thread David G. Johnston
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, David G. Johnston > wrote: > > Maybe I don't understand PGDLLEXPORT... > > We're talking about PGDLLIMPORT. > ​Typo, was thinking "we export this for others to consume"... ​ > > > The PostgreSQL function/feat

Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-06-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> In short, I'd vote for putting this change in HEAD, but I see no need to >> back-patch. > > OK, fine for me. Done. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers ma

Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-06-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > Maybe I don't understand PGDLLEXPORT... We're talking about PGDLLIMPORT. > The PostgreSQL function/feature in question is already in place and can be > accessed by someone using Linux or other unix-like variant. But it cannot > be acces

Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-06-01 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I suggest that there's a more principled reason for refusing a back-patch > here, which is that we don't back-patch new features, only bug fixes. > This request is certainly not a bug fix. It's in support of a new feature > --- and one that's not

Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-06-01 Thread David G. Johnston
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > >> Probably not, but yes, I do want to reduce the commit load. I also > >> think that we essentially have a contract with our users to limit what > >> we back-patch to critical bug fixes an

Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-06-01 Thread Tom Lane
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Probably not, but yes, I do want to reduce the commit load. I also >> think that we essentially have a contract with our users to limit what >> we back-patch to critical bug fixes and security fixes. When we don't >> do that, people start as

Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-06-01 Thread David G. Johnston
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > >> > On 1 June 2016 at 11:48, Michael Paquier > wrote: > >> >> Could it be possible to mark Postmas

Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-06-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> > On 1 June 2016 at 11:48, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> Could it be possible to mark PostmasterPid with PGDLLIMPORT on HEAD >> >> and back-branches? >> > >> > So

Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-06-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 1 June 2016 at 11:48, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Could it be possible to mark PostmasterPid with PGDLLIMPORT on HEAD > >> and back-branches? > > > > Sounds sensible to me. > > I don't really want to set a precedent

Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-06-01 Thread David G. Johnston
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Craig Ringer > wrote: > > On 1 June 2016 at 11:48, Michael Paquier > wrote: > >> Could it be possible to mark PostmasterPid with PGDLLIMPORT on HEAD > >> and back-branches? > > > > Sounds sensible to me. > > ​

Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-06-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 1 June 2016 at 11:48, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Could it be possible to mark PostmasterPid with PGDLLIMPORT on HEAD >> and back-branches? > > Sounds sensible to me. I don't really want to set a precedent that we'll back-patch PGDLLIMPORT

Re: [HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-05-31 Thread Craig Ringer
On 1 June 2016 at 11:48, Michael Paquier wrote: > Could it be possible to mark PostmasterPid with PGDLLIMPORT on HEAD > and back-branches? > Sounds sensible to me. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

[HACKERS] PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT

2016-05-31 Thread Michael Paquier
Hi all, While hacking a background worker for Windows/Linux that is sending signals to the Postmaster depending on the state of the server where Postgres is running (particularly after a certain size threshold is reached on the partition of PGDATA SIGINT is sent to PostmasterPid to have it stop cl