Re: Add a new BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK flag

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 10:01:04AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> I think that would make sense to have more flexibility in the worker_spi
> module. I think that could be done in a dedicated patch though. I
> think it makes more sense to have the current patch "focusing" on
> this new flag (while adding a test about it without too much
> refactoring). What about doing the worker_spi module re-factoring
> as a follow up of this one?

I would do that first, as that's what I usually do, but I see also
your point that this is not mandatory. If you want, I could give it a
shot tomorrow to see where it leads.

> Oh right, worth to modify 019_replslot_limit.pl, 002_corrupted.pl and
> 001_pg_controldata.pl in a separate patch for consistency? (they are using
> "(stat $node->logfile)[7]" or "(stat($pg_control))[7]").

Indeed, that's strange. Let's remove the dependency to stat here.
The other solution is slightly more elegant IMO, as we don't rely on
the position of the result from stat().
--
Michael