Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>, "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers
Date: 2022-08-24 04:40:54
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:04:30AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
>> When can we rely on static initialization, and when can't we? Is there a
>> concern that the memory could have been polluted from before the
>> postmaster's fork?

> My main worry here is EXEC_BACKEND, where we would just use our own
> implementation of fork(), and it is a bad idea at the end to leave
> that untouched while we could have code paths that attempt to access
> it.

Uh ... what? EXEC_BACKEND is even more certain to correctly initialize
static/global variables in a child process. I agree with Jacob that
this memset is probably useless, and therefore confusing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2022-08-24 04:59:25 Re: [PATCH] Optimize json_lex_string by batching character copying
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2022-08-24 04:38:44 Re: ICU for global collation