From: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add Postgres module info |
Date: | 2024-12-12 04:35:56 |
Message-ID: | a0872eec-1596-466f-8e15-0540a29528c4@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/12/24 10:44, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 10:39:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
>>> Presumably,
>>> the extra tracking can be done in dfmgr.c with more fields added to
>>> DynamicFileList to track the information involved.
>>
>> I wouldn't add any overhead to the normal case for this. Couldn't
>> we walk the list and re-fetch each module's magic block inside
>> this new function?
>
> Depends on how much we should try to cache to make that less expensive
> on repeated calls because we cannot unload libraries, but sure, I
> don't see why we could not that for each SQL function call to simplify
> the logic and the structures in place.
I want to say that 'cannot unload libraries' is a negative outcome of
the architecture. It would be better to invent something like
PG_unregister, allowing libraries to at least return a hook routine call
back to the system.
So, maybe it makes sense to design this feature with re-fetching
libraries, supposing it is already implemented somehow and elements of
the DynamicFileList may be removed.
--
regards, Andrei Lepikhov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-12-12 04:36:21 | Re: Track the amount of time waiting due to cost_delay |
Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2024-12-12 04:24:42 | Re: pg_createsubscriber TAP test wrapping makes command options hard to read. |