Re: BF animal malleefowl reported an failure in 001_password.pl

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BF animal malleefowl reported an failure in 001_password.pl
Date: 2023-01-19 20:16:00
Message-ID: 1801.1674159360@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So I think we probably need something like the attached, which I was
> originally trying to avoid.

Yeah, something like that. I also wonder if you don't need to think
a bit harder about the ordering of the flag checks, in particular
it seems like servicing reload_request before child_exit might be
a good idea (remembering that child_exit might cause launching of
new children, so we want to be up to speed on relevant settings).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-01-19 20:37:15 Re: meson oddities
Previous Message Robert Haas 2023-01-19 20:13:39 Re: almost-super-user problems that we haven't fixed yet