Re: Emit a warning if the extension's GUC is set incorrectly

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shinya11(dot)Kato(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, daniel(at)yesql(dot)se, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Emit a warning if the extension's GUC is set incorrectly
Date: 2021-12-28 17:06:55
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> As a stopgap to turn the farm green again, I am going to revert
> 75d22069e as well as my followup patches. If we don't want to
> give up on that idea altogether, we have to find some way to
> suppress the chatter from parallel workers. I wonder whether
> it would be appropriate to go further than we have, and actively
> delete placeholders that turn out to be within an extension's
> reserved namespace. The core issue here is that workers don't
> necessarily set GUCs and load extensions in the same order that
> their parent did, so if we leave any invalid placeholders behind
> after reserving an extension's prefix, we're risking issues
> during worker start.

Here's a delta patch (meant to be applied after reverting cab5b9ab2)
that does things like that. It fixes the parallel-mode problem ...
so do we want to tighten things up this much?

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
delete-disallowed-placeholders.patch text/x-diff 4.1 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tushar 2021-12-28 17:16:15 Re: refactoring basebackup.c
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2021-12-28 16:46:53 Re: Extend compatibility of PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster