Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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: 2022-01-29 02:19:12
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:18:15AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Alright. I think the comment adjustments still apply, so I split those out
> to a new patch.

Looks fine after a second look, so applied.

As of the issues of this thread, we really have two things to think
1) How do we want to control the access of some parameters in a
context or another? One idea would be more control through GUCs, say
with a set of context-related flags that prevent the read of some
variables until they are set. We could encourage the use of
GetConfigOption() for that. For MaxBackends, we could add a read-only
GUC for this purpose. That's what Andres hinted at upthread, I
2) How do we deal with unwanted access of shared parameters? This one
is not really controllable, is it? And we are talking about much more
than MaxBackends. This could perhaps be addressed with more
documentation in the headers for the concerned variables, as a first

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2022-01-29 02:36:31 Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2022-01-29 02:12:50 Re: Is it correct to update db state in control file as "shutting down" during end-of-recovery checkpoint?