2016-02-12 17:35 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2016-02-12 15:46 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>>
>> 2016-02-12 15:43 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> That's very strange. It looks to me like you did exactly the right
>>> >> thing. Can you provide any details on how it fails?
>>> >
>>> > Looks like some race conditions is there - but I didn't tested it
>>> deeper
>>>
>>> Well, OK, so I'm totally willing to work with you to help get this
>>> straightened out, but I'm not really going to go download orafce and
>>> debug it for you on company time. I'm fairly sure that won't win me
>>> any large awards.
>>>
>>
>> I'll do it - just need to finish some other. I hope so this night I'll
>> know more.
>>
>
> In _PG_init I am creating new tranche by
> RequestNamedLWLockTranche("orafce", 1);
>
> Immediately when I try to use this lock
>
> shmem_lock = sh_mem->shmem_lock = &(GetNamedLWLockTranche("orafce"))->lock;
>
> I got a error
>
> ERROR: XX000: requested tranche is not registered
> LOCATION: GetNamedLWLockTranche, lwlock.c:602
>
> Because the session initialization doesn't finish, then Orafce doesn't work
>
I am starting to understand - the new design is more strict. The Orafce is
designed to run without registration shared_preload_libraries (it is
possible, but not necessary). But - RequestNamedLWLockTranche is working
only for this use case. Then GetNamedLWLockTranche fails, and all other are
probably consequences because shared memory isn't well initialized. After
setting shared_preload_libraries all tests are running. But I cannot do it
generally.
What is your recommendation for this case? So I have not to use named locks?
Regards
Pavel
>
>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Pavel
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robert Haas
>>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>
>>
>>
>
