Re: Extend injection_points_attach() to accept a user-defined function

From: Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extend injection_points_attach() to accept a user-defined function
Date: 2025-11-07 12:09:57
Message-ID: CAH2L28tzZFB+daOTqadBhnYCL6666GwJGeh0=6yQSBT5AEEsLQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Thank you for your review.

>
> + if (injection_point_local)
> + {
> + condition.type = INJ_CONDITION_PID;
> + condition.pid = MyProcPid;
> + }
>
> Hmm. Is there a point in registering a condition that's linked to
> the shared library injection_points? The automatic drop is kind of
> nice to have, I guess, but it gives the illusion that an attached
> callback will not be run. However, a callback from an entirely
> different library *will* run anyway because it cannot look at the
> condition registered, or the other library has an equivalent able to
> treat a local condition with the same format and same structure as
> what's in injection_points.c.
>
The intention was to keep the implementation consistent across all
versions of injection_points_attach(). I agree that the conditional
implementation
is only feasible if the library defining the new function also supports the same
structure as injection_points.c. Therefore, I am okay with not adding
this support
for custom functions, since it would not be complete without the new function
being able to read the same structure.

> Different idea: we could allow one to pass a bytea that could be given
> directly to InjectionPointAttach()? Without a use-case, I cannot get
> much excited about that yet, but if someone has a use for it, why not.
>

This seems helpful for situations where each module needs to provide its
own custom data to the injection point. This idea is implemented in the
attached patch.

> Maybe we should also discard the pgstat_create_inj() call in this
> path? The existing injection_points_detach() would be able to deal
> with a point attached with a callback from a different library anyway.
> Keeping pgstat_report_inj_fixed() feels OK in this new attach path.

OK, it makes sense to leave it out of this function for now. Since
pgstat_create_inj() currently only tracks the number of runs, it also
depends on any callback using the appropriate pgstat_report_* API
from the injection_point module. Without this, setting up the stats
infrastructure wouldn't be useful.

PFA the updated and rebased patch.

Thank you,
Rahila Syed

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0001-Overload-the-injection_points_attach-sql-function.patch application/octet-stream 5.3 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Álvaro Herrera 2025-11-07 12:11:44 Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_subscription_ddl() function
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2025-11-07 11:29:51 Re: Logical Replication of sequences