Re: should we document an example to set multiple libraries in shared_preload_libraries?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: should we document an example to set multiple libraries in shared_preload_libraries?
Date: 2021-12-01 13:15:04
Message-ID: 1721781.1638364504@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> +1 to document it, but it seems like the worse problem is allowing the admin to
> write a configuration which causes the server to fail to start, without having
> issued a warning.

> I think you could fix that with a GUC check hook to emit a warning.
> I'm not sure what objections people might have to this. Maybe it's confusing
> to execute preliminary verification of the library by calling stat() but not do
> stronger verification for other reasons the library might fail to load. Like
> it doesn't have the right magic number, or it's built for the wrong server
> version. Should factor out the logic from internal_load_library and check
> those too ?

Considering the vanishingly small number of actual complaints we've
seen about this, that sounds ridiculously over-engineered.
A documentation example should be sufficient.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2021-12-01 13:16:24 Re: Optionally automatically disable logical replication subscriptions on error
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2021-12-01 13:00:16 Re: should we document an example to set multiple libraries in shared_preload_libraries?