From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "wangsh(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangsh(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init |
Date: | 2022-03-25 22:23:17 |
Message-ID: | 20220325222317.dftrmzuyrb3iv62o@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-03-25 14:35:42 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 02:08:09PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:11:46AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > As an example, here's a POC for a new shmem_request_hook hook after _PG_init().
> > > With it I could easily fix pg_wait_sampling shmem allocation (and checked that
> > > it's indeed requesting the correct size).
> >
> > Are you sure that the end of a release cycle is the good moment to
> > begin designing new hooks? Anything added is something we are going
> > to need supporting moving forward. My brain is telling me that we
> > ought to revisit the business with GetMaxBackends() properly instead,
> > and perhaps revert that.
>
> I agree, and as I mentioned in my original email I don't think that the
> committed patch is actually adding something on which we can really build on.
> So I'm also in favor of reverting, as it seems like be a better option in the
> long run to have a clean and broader solution.
I don't really understand. The issue that started this thread was bugs in
extensions due to accessing MaxBackends before it is initialized - which the
patch prevents. The stuff that you're complaining about / designing here
doesn't seem related to that. I like the idea of the hooks etc, but I fail to
see why we "ought to revisit the business with GetMaxBackends()"?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-03-25 22:45:33 | Re: [PATCH] Enable SSL library detection via PQsslAttribute |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-25 22:07:43 | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? |