| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeremy Finzel <finzelj(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Passing current_database to BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection |
| Date: | 2018-04-02 19:27:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20180402192730.jw5qeolgecvyldwr@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-04-02 14:24:53 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
> Thank you, this makes sense. However, how can this be done since I can
> only pass one argument to bgw_main? Is there any way to do this without
> having to store the value in shared memory?
No (I mean you can store it in the filesystem or such as well, but
...). Pretty fundamentally sharing data between concurrently running
processes needs a medium to share the data over. The bgw infrastructure
allocates just enough so you can put an index to it into
shmem. Allocating more would be wasteful and/or not enough for some
users.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-04-02 19:32:45 | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Finzel | 2018-04-02 19:24:53 | Re: Passing current_database to BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection |