From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>,
        "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
        Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: logical replication launcher crash on buildfarm
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmobBTZ_eDbTmx-pfUndZDKPBAcj+r_3CQjEHFkp99kE2Yg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170316032833.2zxfnqe3sl3ktrbt@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20170316034246.3uurliezczmka6cn@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <e56bda7f-9d29-6900-0f90-96be8219b930@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20170316085322.crffknkgee5s6air@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <368e64f6-ee9a-f09f-82b4-a33b61b28d36@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20170327165023.t224nralrspk6udc@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+Tgmoa3C7=gVvmwvvKWT6+mkm=XGSDqF4bXu6=fohArafWHMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <52d78669-0523-4e60-a263-841c96210256@2ndquadrant.com>
 <8941c9b1-f6e9-1056-39f2-7bc7336c4d00@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20170328020422.i4srzzgq4zbzu2ci@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmobBTZ_eDbTmx-pfUndZDKPBAcj+r_3CQjEHFkp99kE2Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:46:00 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8212.1490669513.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:51:53 -0400
Message-ID: <8213.1490669513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I wasn't thinking of introducing bgw_builtin_id.  My idea was just
> along the lines of

> if (bgw_library_name == NULL && bgw_function_name != NULL)
> {
>     if (strcmp(bgw_function_name, "ParallelQueryMain") == 0)
>        ParallelQueryMain(blah);
>     else if (strcmp(bgw_function_name, "LogicalReplicationMain") == 0)
>        LogicalReplicationMain(blah);
> }

> I think something like that is certainly better for the back-branches,
> because it doesn't cause an ABI break.  But I think it would also be
> fine for master.

That seems perfectly reasonable from here: surely the cost of a couple
of strcmp's is trivial in comparison to a process launch.

We can redesign the API whenever this way starts getting unwieldy,
but that's likely to be quite some time away.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers