| From: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Weird test mixup |
| Date: | 2024-05-02 08:52:20 |
| Message-ID: | 5DF6B37D-EB0E-46A5-AEB3-D2EA9F1E580F@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 2 May 2024, at 13:43, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> A detach is not a wakeup.
Oh, now I see. Sorry for the noise.
Detaching local injection point of other backend seems to be useless and can be forbidden.
As far as I understand, your patch is already doing this in
+ if (!injection_point_allowed(name))
+ elog(ERROR, "cannot detach injection point \"%s\" not allowed to run",
+ name);
+
As far as I understand this will effectively forbid calling injection_points_detach() for local injection point of other backend. Do I get it right?
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yugo NAGATA | 2024-05-02 09:00:27 | Re: Extend ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES for large objects |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-05-02 08:43:58 | Re: Weird test mixup |