| 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 |
| Message-ID: | 1902182.1640711215@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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 |
| 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 |