Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 21:12:11 -0700
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	"Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>,
	Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>,
	"wangsh.fnst@fujitsu.com" <wangsh.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
	Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
	Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: make MaxBackends available in _PG_init
Message-ID: <20220511041211.GA3848903@nathanxps13>
References: 
 <CA+TgmobNyQvge4rgFUKpZyz2TZqv=2dt3XpPPu7HQttCm8i2Cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2886153.1651845462@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmobYKhUvs0vS_QyyHMpPw0OsyQJqNZWpRCcT1jBVwLxTJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2890782.1651848201@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20220506152711.GA3404123@nathanxps13>
 <20220506211521.GA3666015@nathanxps13>
 <CA+Tgmoa2GjGizcoTgHUgzfecy1ftSEPmKHVvY3VOgEFVC_3FYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YnoocH8Tf93nXN3A@paquier.xyz>
 <20220510155628.GA3671942@nathanxps13>
 <Ynsc9bRL1caUSBSE@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="wac7ysb48OaltWcw"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Ynsc9bRL1caUSBSE@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220511041211.GA3848903%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk


--wac7ysb48OaltWcw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:18:29AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 0002 looks pretty good from here.  If it were me, I would apply 0002
> first to avoid the extra tweak in pg_stat_statements with _PG_fini in
> 0001.

I swapped 0001 and 0002 in v8.

> Regarding 0001, I have spotted an extra issue in the documentation.
> xfunc.sgml has a section called "Shared Memory and LWLocks" about the
> use of RequestNamedLWLockTranche() and RequestAddinShmemSpace() called
> from _PG_init(), which would now be wrong as we'd need the hook.  IMO,
> the docs should mention the registration of the hook in _PG_init(),
> the APIs involved, and should mention to look at pg_stat_statements.c
> for a code sample (we tend to avoid the addition of sample code in the
> docs lately as we habe no way to check their compilation
> automatically).

Ah, good catch.  I adjusted the docs as you suggested.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

--wac7ysb48OaltWcw
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v8-0001-Remove-logic-for-unloading-dynamically-loaded-fil.patch"