Re: Issue with cancel_before_shmem_exit while searching to remove a particular registered exit callbacks

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Issue with cancel_before_shmem_exit while searching to remove a particular registered exit callbacks
Дата
Msg-id 3354159.1597106762@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Issue with cancel_before_shmem_exit while searching to remove a particular registered exit callbacks  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: Issue with cancel_before_shmem_exit while searching to remove a particular registered exit callbacks  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> I think there's two different aspects here: Having before_shmem_exit(),
> and having cancel_before_shmem_exit(). We could just not have the
> latter, and instead use a separate list for PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP
> internally. With the callback for PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP calling those
> from its private list.  There's no other uses of
> cancel_before_shmem_exit afaict.

It's certainly arguable that PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP is a special
snowflake and needs to use a separate mechanism.  What is not real clear
to me is why there are any other callers that must use before_shmem_exit
rather than on_shmem_exit --- IOW, except for P_E_E_C's use, I have never
been persuaded that the former callback list should exist at all.  The
expectation for on_shmem_exit is that callbacks correspond to system
service modules that are initialized in a particular order, and can safely
be torn down in the reverse order.  Why can't the existing callers just
make even-later entries into that same callback list?

            regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Add LWLock blocker(s) information
Следующее
От: James Coleman
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait