Re: pg_file_settings view vs. Windows

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Yeah, exactly.  Unfortunately I see no way to add a useful test, at least
>>> not one that will work in installcheck mode.  There's no way to predict
>>> what will be in the view in that case.  Even for "make check", the output
>>> would be pretty darn environment-dependent.
>
>> And also because this patch had no review input regarding Windows and
>> EXEC_BACKEND. I would suggest pinging the author (just did so),
>> waiting for a fix a bit, and move on with 4. if nothing happens.
>
> Well, mumble.  After playing with this for a bit, I'm fairly convinced
> that it offers useful functionality, especially with the error-reporting
> additions I've proposed.  Right now, there is no easy way to tell whether
> a SIGHUP has worked, or why not if not, unless you have access to the
> postmaster log.  So I think there's definite usefulness here for
> remote-administration scenarios.
>
> So I kinda think that alternative 1 (document the Windows deficiency)
> is better than having no such functionality at all.  Obviously a proper
> fix would be better yet, but that's something that could be rolled in
> later.
>
>> We usually require that a patch includes support for Windows as a
>> requirement (see for example discussions about why pg_fincore in not a
>> contrib module even if it overlaps a bit with pg_prewarm), why would
>> this patch have a different treatment?
>
> Agreed, but it was evidently not obvious to anyone that there was a
> portability issue in this code, else we'd have resolved the issue
> before it got committed.  As a thought experiment, what would happen
> if we'd not noticed this issue till post-release, which is certainly
> not implausible?
>
> Also, there are multiple pre-existing minor bugs (the leakage problem
> I mentioned earlier, and some other things I've found while hacking
> on the view patch) that we would have to deal with in some other
> way if we revert now.  I'd just as soon not detangle that.
>

Thank you for bug report.

I have not came up with portable idea yet, but I will deal with this
problem immediately.
If I couldn't come up with better solution, I'd like to propose #1 idea.
But it would be unavoidable to be revert it if there are any reason
for Windows support.

Regards,

--
Sawada Masahiko