| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(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>, "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: | 2022-04-13 07:54:29 |
| Message-ID: | YlaBtddYkMDSviyU@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 05:43:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It probably is. I'm just offering this as a solution if people want to
> insist on a mechanism to prevent unsafe GUC changes. If we drop the
> idea of trying to forcibly prevent extensions from Doing It Wrong,
> then we don't need this, only the extra hook.
FWIW, I'd be fine with a simple solution like what Julien has been
proposing with the extra hook, rather than a GUC to enforce all that.
That may be nice in the long-run, but the potential benefits may not
be completely clear, either, after a closer read of this thread.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-04-13 08:10:27 | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2022-04-13 07:35:39 | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |