Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> This just seems truly messy :-(. Let me see if I can find something >>> cleaner.
I quite like the idea of splitting initialization into two phases, one that let's you access shared catalogs, and one to bind to a database. I didn't look into the details, though. >> I was considering having InitPostgres be an umbrella function, so that >> extant callers stay as today, but the various underlying pieces are >> skipped depending on who's calling. For example I didn't like the bit >> about starting a transaction or not depending on whether it was the >> launcher. > > Yeah. If you have InitPostgres know that much about the AV launcher's > requirements, it's not clear why it shouldn't just know everything. > Having it return with the initial transaction still open just seems > completely horrid. Yeah, that sounds messy. Can AV launcher simply open a 2nd initial transaction? -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
