| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example |
| Date: | 2023-06-12 23:30:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20230612233015.GB180938@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 06:35:00PM -0400, Michael Paquier wrote:
> It does not have to be complicated, but I definitely agree that we'd
> better spend some efforts in improving it as a whole especially
> knowing that this is mentioned on the docs as an example that one
> could rely on.
+1. I know I've used worker_spi as a reference for writing background
workers before.
IMHO it'd be better if the patch documented the places where the ordering
really does matter instead of hoping extension authors will understand the
reasoning behind the proposed reordering. I agree that the current code
could lead folks to think that PushActiveSnapshot must go after
SPI_connect, but wouldn't the reverse ordering just give folks the opposite
impression?
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-06-12 23:43:09 | Re: Setting restrictedtoken in pg_regress |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-06-12 23:29:19 | Re: Setting restrictedtoken in pg_regress |