Il giorno ven 18 feb 2022 alle ore 10:58 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> ha scritto:
> I wrote: > > As a stopgap to turn the farm green again, I am going to revert > > 75d22069e as well as my followup patches. If we don't want to > > give up on that idea altogether, we have to find some way to > > suppress the chatter from parallel workers. I wonder whether > > it would be appropriate to go further than we have, and actively > > delete placeholders that turn out to be within an extension's > > reserved namespace. The core issue here is that workers don't > > necessarily set GUCs and load extensions in the same order that > > their parent did, so if we leave any invalid placeholders behind > > after reserving an extension's prefix, we're risking issues > > during worker start. > > Here's a delta patch (meant to be applied after reverting cab5b9ab2) > that does things like that. It fixes the parallel-mode problem ... > so do we want to tighten things up this much? > > regards, tom lan > Hello, Thank you for taking care of the bug I introduced with 75d22069e, I didn't notice this thread until now. For what it's worth, I agree with throwing an ERROR if the placeholder is unrecognized. Initially, I didn't want to change too much the liberty of setting any placeholder, but mainly to not go unnoticed. In my humble opinion, I still think that this should go on and disallow bogus placeholders as we do for postgres unrecognized settings. I tested your delta patch with and without parallel mode, and, naturally, it behaves correctly. My 2 cents. +1 Cheers, Florin Irion
