| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2022-04-12 21:46:36 |
| Message-ID: | 995617.1649799996@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> If we allow changing GUCs in _PG_init() and provide another hook where
> MaxBackends will be initialized, do we need to introduce another GUC flag,
> or can we get away with just blocking all GUC changes when the new hook is
> called? I'm slightly hesitant to add a GUC flag that will need to manually
> maintained. Wouldn't it be easily forgotten?
On the whole I think Robert's got the right idea: we do not really
need an enforcement mechanism at all. People who are writing
extensions that do this sort of thing will learn how to do it right.
(It's not like there's not a thousand other things they have to get
right.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-04-12 21:53:03 | Improving the "Routine Vacuuming" docs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-12 21:43:17 | Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init |