Re: coverage increase for worker_spi

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Alvaro Herrera
Тема
Re: coverage increase for worker_spi
Дата
в 19:17:52
Msg-id
20190531191752.GA7467@alvherre.pgsql
Ответ на
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
От: David Rowley
Дата:
От: James Coleman
Дата:
FAQ