| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "wangsh(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangsh(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init |
| Date: | 2022-05-06 13:57:42 |
| Message-ID: | 2886153.1651845462@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> perhaps for v16 or some future release we can think about redoing a
> bunch of hooks this way. There would be some migration pain for
> extension authors for sure, but then we might get to a point where
> extensions can be cleanly unloaded in at least some circumstances,
> instead of continuing to write silly _PG_fini() functions that
> couldn't possibly ever work.
I agree that _PG_fini functions as they stand are worthless.
What I'm not getting is why we should care enough about that
to break just about everybody's extension. Even if unloading
extensions were feasible, who would bother?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-05-06 14:10:10 | Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-05-06 13:57:26 | Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations |