Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(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>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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: 2022-05-10 08:55:12
Message-ID: YnoocH8Tf93nXN3A@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 07:51:43PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 5:15 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 08:27:11AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> > +1, I'll put together a new patch set.
>>
>> As promised...
>
> Looks reasonable to me.

0001 looks sensible seen from here with this approach.

> Anyone else have thoughts?

I agree that removing support for the unloading part would be nice to
clean up now on HEAD. Note that 0002 is missing the removal of one
reference to _PG_fini in xfunc.sgml (<primary> markup).
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2022-05-10 08:58:59 Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2022-05-10 08:37:24 Re: Privileges on PUBLICATION