Re: New Object Access Type hooks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Joe Conway <joe(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Subject: Re: New Object Access Type hooks
Date: 2022-03-22 17:08:45
Message-ID: 2567295.1647968925@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 3/22/22 12:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I only suggested removing the error check in _PG_init, not
>> changing the way the test works.

> Mark and I discussed this offline, and decided there was no requirement
> for the module to be preloaded. Do you have a different opinion?

No, I was actually about to make the same point: it seems to me there
are arguable use-cases for loading it shared, loading it per-session
(perhaps via ALTER USER SET or ALTER DATABASE SET to target particular
users/DBs), or even manually LOADing it. So the module code should
not be prejudging how it's used.

On reflection, I withdraw my complaint about changing the way the
test script loads the module. Getting rid of the need for a custom
.conf file simplifies the test module, and that seems good.
So I'm on board with Mark's patch now.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Maxim Orlov 2022-03-22 17:22:59 Re: XID formatting and SLRU refactorings (was: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15)
Previous Message Mark Dilger 2022-03-22 17:04:55 Re: New Object Access Type hooks