| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com" <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers |
| Date: | 2022-03-23 23:00:28 |
| Message-ID: | 2886824.1648076428@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 18:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think what we ought to do here is separate out the data that we think
>> parallel workers need access to. It does not seem wise to say "workers
>> can access fields A,B,C of MyPort but not fields X,Y,Z". I do not have
>> a concrete proposal for fixing it though.
> v6-0002 has my first attempt at this. I moved authn_id into its own
> substruct inside Port, which gets serialized with the parallel key
> machinery. (My name selection of "SharedPort" is pretty bland.)
Hm. I was more envisioning getting the "sharable" info out of Port
entirely, although I'm not quite sure where it should go instead.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-23 23:02:30 | Re: ubsan |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-23 22:57:04 | Re: multithreaded zstd backup compression for client and server |