public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Bump soft open file limit (RLIMIT_NOFILE) to hard limit on startup
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 11:11:51 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CAGECzQQh6VSy3KG4pN1d=h9J=D1rStFCMR+t7yh_Kwj-g87aLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<7u7dbn6s2i6bf3hjzkbqaexj2bpoblqxwbkffbetl4rjv6dcom@s2uickjc5z53>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAGECzQQqO0DKhyZtUWRKSL=WeBSYM=+gZ+dY58xQ2ZnypSONTw@mail.gmail.com>
	<lj5q3h4zxwhfusvv2azjnwva74yjwthkrrsvcxrac67f636tpi@ewtgldqjfwes>
	<CAGECzQQ1JnUim8KEFVrM+d4zfvxg=yVmzB8rLv4W5mKmnVnEuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4huky7iczrycvq3ptpjkkzrclsabqceu6jyppizotjafqywq5g@g4eynaqxjog5>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On 13.04.25 21:30, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Fri Apr 4, 2025 at 7:34 PM CEST, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Let's move that 'in_restore_command' business to the caller. It's 
>> weird modularity for the function to implicitly behave differently for 
>> some callers. 
> 
> I definitely agree with the sentiment, and it was what I originally
> planned to do. But then I went for this approach anyway because commit
> 8fb13dd6ab5b explicitely moved all code except for the actual call to
> system() out of the PreRestoreCommand()/PostRestoreCommand() section
> (which is also described in the code comment).
> So I didn't move the the in_restore_command stuff to the caller, and
> improved the function comment to call out this unfortunate coupling.
>> And 'wait_event_info' should only affect pgstat reporting, not actual 
>> behavior.
> 
> Given that we need to keep the restore command stuff in this function, I
> think the only other option is to add a dedicated argument for the
> restore command stuff, like "bool is_restore_command". But that would
> require every caller, except for the restore command, to pass an
> additional "false" as an argument. To me the additionaly noise that that
> adds seems like a worse issue than the non-purity we get by
> piggy-backing on the wait_event_info argument.
> 
>> I don't feel good about the function name. How about pg_system() or 
>> something? 

This patch set is showing compiler warnings because pg_system() wasn't 
properly declared where needed.  Please provide an update that builds 
cleanly.

Also, it appears the patch for pgbench disappeared from the series.  Was 
that intentional?

view thread (7+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Bump soft open file limit (RLIMIT_NOFILE) to hard limit on startup
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox