Re: coverage increase for worker_spi
От
Alvaro Herrera
Тема
Re: coverage increase for worker_spi
Дата
Msg-id
20190531191752.GA7467@alvherre.pgsql
Ответ на
Re: coverage increase for worker_spi (Alvaro Herrera)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
coverage increase for worker_spi Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: coverage increase for worker_spi Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: coverage increase for worker_spi Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: coverage increase for worker_spi Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: coverage increase for worker_spi Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: coverage increase for worker_spi Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: coverage increase for worker_spi Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: coverage increase for worker_spi Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: coverage increase for worker_spi Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 2019-May-30, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > One thing I noticed while writing it, though, is that worker_spi uses > the postgres database, instead of the contrib_regression database that > was created for it. And we create a schema and a table there. This is > going to get some eyebrows raised, I think, so I'll look into fixing > that as a bugfix before getting this commit in. Another thing I noticed when fixing *this*, in turn, is that if you load worker_spi in shared_preload_libraries then the contrib_regression database doesn't exist by the point that runs, so those workers fail to start. The dynamic one does start in the configured database. I guess we could just ignore the failures and just rely on the dynamic worker. I ended up with these two patches. I'm not sure about pushing separately. It seems pointless to backport the "fix" to back branches anyway. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления