On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 9:25 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> > In my understanding, the restriction is not required. So, I think it's
> > better to change the behavior.
> > (v1-0001-Support-worker_spi-to-execute-the-function-dynamical.patch)
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> +1. I'm OK to lift this restriction with a SIGHUP GUC for the
> database name and that's not a pattern to encourage in a template
> module. Will do so, if there are no objections.
+1. However, a comment above helps one to understand why some GUCs are
defined before if (!process_shared_preload_libraries_in_progress). As
this is an example extension, it will help understand the reasoning
better. I know we will it in the commit message, but a direct comment
helps:
/*
* Note that this GUC is defined irrespective of worker_spi shared library
* presence in shared_preload_libraries. It's possible to create the
* worker_spi extension and use functions without it being specified in
* shared_preload_libraries. If we return from here without defining this
* GUC, the dynamic workers launched by worker_spi_launch() will keep
* crashing and restarting.
*/
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
