Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In any case, the PG_init proposal neither adds nor takes away ability
>> to do stuff immediately post-fork, so I think that's an orthogonal
>> consideration.
> So is the only question whether there's a need to do stuff pre-fork?
That's not a question, that's a well-established fact --- pl/R certainly
needs it, and any other library that has expensive setup work that can
propagate through a fork does too.
I think adding a hook to allow a postmaster-preloaded library to execute
some work immediately post-fork is a separate consideration. Feel free
to propose it if you want, but I don't see what it's got to do with the
patch on the table.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
