On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:56 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I've wanted this in the past, too, so +1 from me. > > I dunno, this seems pretty scary and easily abusable. There's not all > that much that can be done safely in ProcessInterrupts(), and we should > not be encouraging extensions to think they can add random processing > there.
We've had this disagreement before about other things, and I just don't agree. If somebody uses a hook for something wildly unsafe, that will break their stuff, not ours. That's not to say I endorse adding hooks for random purposes in random places. In particular, if it's impossible to use a particular hook in a reasonably safe way, that's a sign that the hook is badly-designed and that we should not have it. But, that's not the case here. I care more about smart extension authors being able to do useful things than I do about the possibility that dumb extension authors will do stupid things. We can't really prevent the latter anyway: this is open source. > We're about halfway there already, see 7e784d1dc. I didn't do the > other half because it wasn't necessary to the problem, but exposing > the shutdown state more fully seems reasonable. Ah, I hadn't realized. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
