From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |
Date: | 2023-11-05 00:03:06 |
Message-ID: | ZUbbuiEQmNKKPv0k@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 01:33:26PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 1:11 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Now, that Michael also committed another similar change in commit
>> 7021d3b176, it is better to be consistent in both cases. So, either we
>
> I agree. Both patches are setting a special GUC value at the command
> line, and both of them don't want the user to somehow override that.
> Since the requirements are the same, I felt the implementations
> (regardless if they use a guc hook or something else) should also be
> done the same way. Yesterday I posted a review comment on the other
> thread [1] (#2c) trying to express the same point about consistency.
Yeah, I certainly agree about consistency in the implementation for
both sides of the coin.
Nevertheless, I'm still +-0 on the GUC hook addition as I am wondering
if there could be a case where one would be interested in enforcing
the state of the GUCs anyway, and we'd prevent entirely that. Another
thing that we can do for max_logical_replication_workers, rather than
a GUC hook, is to add a check on IsBinaryUpgrade in
ApplyLauncherRegister(). At least that would be consistent with what
we do for autovacuum as the apply worker is just a bgworker.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-11-05 01:14:01 | Re: Version 14/15 documentation Section "Alter Default Privileges" |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-11-04 23:56:05 | Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication |