Re: Extend injection_points_attach() to accept a user-defined function

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extend injection_points_attach() to accept a user-defined function
Date: 2025-11-10 00:57:14
Message-ID: aRE4akMIV80DFWgc@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Nov 09, 2025 at 08:35:55AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah. What you are doing would be enough on simplicity ground. The
> test added is also fine enough, it's safe to run even under an
> installcheck. So LGTM to use a minimal implementation.

The patch had a one problem other than style. Contrary to its
existing cousin, the new function is not strict. Hence, it would
crash if given a NULL value for the point name, the library name or
the function name.

Fixed all that, adjusted a few comments, then applied the result.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2025-11-10 00:59:33 Re: isolation tester limitation in case of multiple injection points in a single command
Previous Message David Rowley 2025-11-10 00:53:36 Re: Some efforts to get rid of "long" in our codebase