Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example

From: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example
Date: 2023-06-03 11:38:26
Message-ID: CAJ7c6TNt7hoCvhRCZYYkYKYa1-PZ5_9VmuzoShhEiJHgEZwZqg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Julien,

> I'm pretty sure that this is intentional. The worker can be launched
> dynamically and in that case it still needs a GUC for the naptime.

The dynamic worker also is going to need worker_spi_database, however
the corresponding GUC declaration is placed below the check.

Perhaps we should just say that the extension shouldn't be used
without shared_preload_libraies. We are not testing whether it works
in such a case anyway.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aleksander Alekseev 2023-06-03 11:56:27 Should "REGRESS_OPTS = --temp-config" be working for 3rd party extensions?
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2023-06-03 11:15:47 Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example