|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|Cc:||Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com>, "rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com" <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2022-03-26 15:18:59 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 05:44:06PM +0000, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 16:54 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Another option would be to make it a GUC. With a bit of care it could be
> >> automatically synced by the existing parallelism infrastructure...
> > Like a write-once, PGC_INTERNAL setting?
Perhaps PGC_INTERNAL, perhaps PGC_SU_BACKEND, set with PGC_S_OVERRIDE?
> > I guess I don't have any
> > intuition on how that would compare to the separate-global-and-accessor
> > approach. Is the primary advantage that you don't have to maintain the
> > serialization logic, or is there more to it?
> Hmm. That would be a first for a GUC, no? It is not seem natural
> compared to the other information pieces passed down from the leader
> to the workers.
What would be the first for a GUC? We have plenty GUCs that are set on a
per-connection basis to reflect some fact? And there's several authenitcation
related bits of state known to guc.c , think role, session_authorization,
Sharing per-connection state via GUCs for paralellism? I don't think that is
true either. E.g. application_name, client_encoding.
> +extern SharedPort MyProcShared;
I strongly dislike MyProcShared. It's way too easily confused with MyProc
which point to shared memory.
|Next Message||Andres Freund||2022-03-26 17:23:16||Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init|
|Previous Message||David G. Johnston||2022-03-26 17:00:00||Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ?|