| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, andrey(dot)chudnovskiy(at)microsoft(dot)com, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Log connection establishment timings |
| Date: | 2025-03-04 22:47:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_aCTSaCEr_p_7xRZ-XXkwVMRD8Cxx52_hGvL881igkvGw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 9:07 AM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I did not imagine that much ;-) I was just seeing this code being duplicated
> and just thought about to avoid the duplication. But now that I read your comments
> above then I think we could just macro-ize the child_type check (as you mentioned
> up-thread). That would avoid the risk to forget to update the 3 locations doing the
> exact same check should we add a new child type in the game.
Is there a word we could use to describe what B_BACKEND and
B_WAL_SENDER have in common? They are the only backend types that will
go through the kind of external connection establishment steps (I
think), but I don't know a very accurate way to make that distinction
(which is required to come up with a useful macro name).
- Melanie
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2025-03-04 22:49:01 | Re: Next commitfest app release is planned for March 18th |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2025-03-04 22:44:48 | Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER |