From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Subject: | Re: Allow workers to override datallowconn |
Date: | 2018-02-23 18:55:28 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEwgd+WPBe9Ehwr1my1xnuMhG=vnh14N5RXSD2EV_1DKBQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > Here's another attempt at moving this one forward. Basically this adds a
> > new GucSource being GUC_S_CLIENT_EARLY. It now runs through the
> parameters
> > once before CheckMyDatabase, with source set to GUC_S_CLIENT_EARLY. In
> this
> > source, *only* parameters that are flagged as GUC_ALLOW_EARLY will be
> set,
> > any other parameters are ignored (without error). For now, only the
> > ignore_connection_restriction is allowed at this stage. Then it runs
> > CheckMyDatabase(), and after that it runs through all the parameters
> again,
> > now with the GUC_S_CLIENT source as usual, which will now process all
> > other variables.
>
> Ick. This is an improvement over the other way of attacking the problem?
> I do not think so.
>
Nope, I'm far from sure that it is. I just wanted to show what it'd look
like.
I personally think the second patch (the one adding a parameter to
BackendWorkerInitializeConnection) is the cleanest one. It doesn't solve
Andres' problem, but perhaps that should be the job of a different patch.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-02-23 18:57:44 | Re: check error messages in SSL tests |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-23 18:52:00 | Re: Allow workers to override datallowconn |