From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Support worker_spi to execute the function dynamically. |
Date: | 2023-07-28 09:19:22 |
Message-ID: | ZMOIGnzht+TQv9or@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 02:11:48PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I don't think something like [1] is complex. It makes worker_spi
> foolproof. Rather, the other approach proposed, that is to provide
> non-conflicting worker IDs to worker_spi_launch in the TAP test file,
> looks complicated to me. And it's easy for someone to come, add a test
> case with conflicting IDs input to worker_spi_launch and end up in the
> same state that we're in now.
Sure, but that's not really something that worries me for a template
such as this one, for the sake of these tests. So I'd leave things to
be as they are, slightly simpler. That's a minor point, for sure :)
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2023-07-28 09:21:25 | Re: Row pattern recognition |
Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2023-07-28 08:56:26 | Re: Row pattern recognition |