From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Cc: wangsh.fnst@fujitsu.com <wangsh.fnst@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 08:27:11 -0700
Message-ID: <20220506152711.GA3404123@nathanxps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2890782.1651848201@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20220418225244.GA2387491@nathanxps13>
<2395586.1650324834@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20220419001220.GA2389330@nathanxps13>
<2470289.1650327424@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<Yl6FmT4qXTA7/NJm@jrouhaud>
<20220419154658.GA2487941@nathanxps13>
<CA+TgmobNyQvge4rgFUKpZyz2TZqv=2dt3XpPPu7HQttCm8i2Cw@mail.gmail.com>
<2886153.1651845462@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+TgmobYKhUvs0vS_QyyHMpPw0OsyQJqNZWpRCcT1jBVwLxTJg@mail.gmail.com>
<2890782.1651848201@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 10:43:21AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:57 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I agree that _PG_fini functions as they stand are worthless.
>>> What I'm not getting is why we should care enough about that
>>> to break just about everybody's extension. Even if unloading
>>> extensions were feasible, who would bother?
>
>> Well, if we think that, then we ought to remove the NOT_USED code and
>> all the random _PG_fini() stuff that's still floating around.
>
> I think that's exactly what we should do, if it bugs you that stuff
> is just sitting there. I see no prospect that we'll ever make it
> work, because the question of unhooking from hooks is just the tip
> of the iceberg. As an example, what should happen with any custom
> GUCs the module has defined? Dropping their values might not be
> very nice, but if we leave them around then the next LOAD (if any)
> will see a conflict. Another fun question is whether it's ever
> safe to unload a module that was preloaded by the postmaster.
>
> In short, this seems like a can of very wriggly worms, with not
> a lot of benefit that would ensue from opening it.
+1, I'll put together a new patch set.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: nathandbossart@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, rjuju123@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, michael@paquier.xyz, bossartn@amazon.com, masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, wangsh.fnst@fujitsu.com, bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com, htamfids@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init
In-Reply-To: <20220506152711.GA3404123@nathanxps13>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox