Re: Issue with PGC_BACKEND parameters
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Issue with PGC_BACKEND parameters |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52EAB6AF.8000704@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Issue with PGC_BACKEND parameters (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Issue with PGC_BACKEND parameters
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/30/2014 03:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 12/22/2013 11:30 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> - * backend start. >> + * backend start. However for windows, we need to process >> + * config file during backend start for non-default >> parameters, >> + * so we need to allow change of PGC_BACKEND during backend >> + * startup. >> */ >> - if (IsUnderPostmaster) >> + if (IsUnderPostmaster && !IsInitProcessingMode()) >> return -1; >> } >> I think this change looks OK. > The comment is pretty awful, since this is neither Windows-specific nor > a read of the config file. Perhaps more like "However, in EXEC_BACKEND > builds we load nondefault settings from the CONFIG_EXEC_PARAMS file during > backend start. In that situation we should accept PGC_SIGHUP > settings, so as to have the same value as if we'd forked from the > postmaster." > > Also, I think that the extra test should only be made #ifdef EXEC_BACKEND, > so as to minimize the risk of breaking things. Not that this isn't pretty > darn fragile anyway; I think testing IsInitProcessingMode here is a very > random way to detect this case. I wonder if it'd be better to pass down > an explicit flag indicating that we're doing read_nondefault_variables(). > If we don't do that, maybe an Assert(IsInitProcessingMode()) in > read_nondefault_variables() would be a good thing. > > OK, I've added your comment to the commitfest item and marked it as "Waiting on Author". cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: