Re: Support worker_spi to execute the function dynamically.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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