Re: BGWORKER_BYPASS_ALLOWCONN used nowhere (infra part of on-line checksum switcher)

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BGWORKER_BYPASS_ALLOWCONN used nowhere (infra part of on-line checksum switcher)
Date: 2018-04-22 13:56:32
Message-ID: 55B47F0A-3103-4EDE-A2EC-87972E4E9357@yesql.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> On 22 Apr 2018, at 14:04, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz <mailto:michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> BGWORKER_BYPASS_ALLOWCONN has been added by commit eed1ce7, which is an
> infrastructure piece to be able to enable and disable dynamically
> checksums on a cluster. The main idea is to be able to bypass
> datallowconn which allows a background worker to connect to a database
> even if the database is set to refuse connections so as its checksums
> can be calculated and updated.
>
> At the end, the dynamic switch for checksums has been reverted as of
> a228cc13, and a set of rather-used APIs have been changed for what looks
> like no reason now:
> - BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection
> - BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnectionByOid
> - InitPostgres
> So all background workers would not be able to compile because of that.
> Would we want to drop this unused interface or keep it?
>
> Even if this is not removed, bgworker.sgml needs to be updated with the
> new definition of BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection and
> BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnectionByOid which are missing the third
> argument "uint32 flags", as well as the description for
> BGWORKER_BYPASS_ALLOWCONN. I can personally see more reasons to revert
> that portion as well and consider it again for v12 or onwards if the
> on-line checksum switch is proposed again.
>
> Magnus, Daniel, what do you think?
>
> I think this feature is definitely worth keeping, regardless. It's useful elsewhere, in externally maintained bgwriters.

+1, I think this is worth keeping in for 11.

cheers ./daniel

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Gierth 2018-04-22 20:25:06 Re: Toast issues with OldestXmin going backwards
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2018-04-22 13:21:31 Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods