Re: A configure.in patch check (fwd)
От | Nigel J. Andrews |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A configure.in patch check (fwd) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0208251702520.10844-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A configure.in patch check (fwd) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: A configure.in patch check (fwd)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > "Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews@investsystems.co.uk> writes: > > + AC_MSG_CHECKING([for default superuser reserved number of connections]) > > + PGAC_ARG_REQ(with, reservedbackends, [ --with-reservedbackends=N set default superuser reserved number of connections[2]], > > + [], > > + [with_reservedbackends=2]) > > This will be rejected anyway; what you want is to set up > reserved_backends as a GUC parameter, not as something that has to be > hard-wired at configure time. I can't see any reason to make it > hard-wired... It is a GUC. It's exactly like max_backends. I took the easy route out and just followed where DEF_MAXBACKENDS was being set rather than hard wiring the value any where. Rather distressingly in order to get this new value into where it's needed I had to hit quite a few files, more than I would have expected. Again I just followed how MaxBackends was being sent to where it was needed but is there any particular reason why storage/ipc/sinvaladt.c:SIBackendInit() can't access MaxBackends and my new ReservedBackends directly? The are global variables afterall, I think #include "miscadmin.h" would need to be added but is that bad? -- Nigel J. Andrews Director --- Logictree Systems Limited Computer Consultants
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: