Re: GUC thread-safety approaches

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GUC thread-safety approaches
Date: 2025-11-18 22:39:07
Message-ID: CAApHDvrhvwycDXzQQS_nox2sB03NRqXjZ_y3EssBSf8cn6sL1g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 at 21:50, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
> where get_config_val_*() would be a thin wrapper around hash_search()
> (a bit like the existing GetConfigOption() and find_option(), but
> without all the error checking).
>
> Would that be too expensive?

Why couldn't in-core GUCs be fields in the Session struct and have a
hash table for storage of custom GUCs, and allow core to access the
fields directly? Extensions would need to go through a function which
does the hash lookup.

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2025-11-18 23:15:11 Re: [PATCH] Add memory usage reporting to VACUUM VERBOSE
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2025-11-18 22:37:39 Re: [PATCH] Fixed creation of empty .log files during log rotation