Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 11:18:29 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
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: <Ynsc9bRL1caUSBSE@paquier.xyz>
References: <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>
 <20220506152711.GA3404123@nathanxps13>
 <20220506211521.GA3666015@nathanxps13>
 <CA+Tgmoa2GjGizcoTgHUgzfecy1ftSEPmKHVvY3VOgEFVC_3FYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YnoocH8Tf93nXN3A@paquier.xyz>
 <20220510155628.GA3671942@nathanxps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xeD/6UIxU92tKjs+"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220510155628.GA3671942@nathanxps13>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Ynsc9bRL1caUSBSE%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--xeD/6UIxU92tKjs+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 08:56:28AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 05:55:12PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I agree that removing support for the unloading part would be nice to
>> clean up now on HEAD.  Note that 0002 is missing the removal of one
>> reference to _PG_fini in xfunc.sgml (<primary> markup).
>=20
> Oops, sorry about that.

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.

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
=66rom _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).

Robert, are you planning to look at what's proposed and push these?
FWIW, I am familiar enough with the problems at hand to do this in
time for beta1 (aka by tomorrow to give it room in the buildfarm), but
I don't want to step on your feet, either.
--
Michael

--xeD/6UIxU92tKjs+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=5tct
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xeD/6UIxU92tKjs+--