From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "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>, "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: | 2022-04-19 09:49:13 |
Message-ID: | Yl6FmT4qXTA7/NJm@jrouhaud |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 08:17:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm looking for a clean way to ERROR if someone attempts to call
> > RequestAddinShmemSpace() or RequestNamedLWLockTranche() outside of the
> > hook. Currently, we are using static variables in ipci.c and lwlock.c to
> > silently ignore invalid requests. I could add a new 'extern bool' called
> > 'process_shmem_requests_in_progress', but extensions could easily hack
> > around that to allow requests in _PG_init(). Maybe I am overthinking all
> > this and that is good enough.
>
> If they do that and it breaks something, that's their fault not ours.
> (It's not like there's not $BIGNUM ways for a C-language module to
> break the backend, anyway.)
Agreed. Similarly the process_shared_preload_libraries_in_progress flag could
be modified by extension, and that wouldn't be any better.
> BTW, I'd make such errors FATAL, as it's unlikely that we can recover
> cleanly from an error during initialization of a loadable module.
> The module's likely to be only partially initialized/hooked in.
While at it, should we make process_shmem_requests_in_progress true when the
new hook is called? The hook should only be called when that's the case, and
extension authors may feel like asserting it.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-04-19 09:53:33 | Re: Fix NULL pointer reference in _outPathTarget() |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-04-19 09:46:11 | Re: Stabilizing the test_decoding checks, take N |