On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 09:32:21AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> The main reason why this doesn't work for MaxBackends is that
> MaxBackends depends on the values of multiple GUCs. There is a further
> wrinkle too, which is that none of those GUCs can change, and
> therefore code does things with the resulting value on the assumption
> that they won't change, like size shared-memory data structures.
> Therefore, if you read the wrong value, you've got a big problem. So
> the real issues here IMHO are about the difficulty of making sure that
> (1) when a GUC changes, we update all of the things that depend on it
> including things which may also depend on other GUCs and (2) making
> sure that values which can't ever change are computed before they are
> used.
>
> I don't know what the solution to problem #1 is, but the solution to
> problem #2 is simple: make people call a function to get the value
> rather than just reading a bare variable. GetConfigOption() is not a
> good solution for people aiming to write C code that does useful
> things, because it delivers the value as a string, and that is not
> what you want. But an accessor function like GetMaxBackends() for a
> quantity of this type is wonderful. Depending on the situation, you
> might choose to have the accessor function [a] fail an assertion if
> the value is not available yet or [b] compute the value if they value
> has not yet been computed or [c] do the latter if possible, otherwise
> the former. But the fact that you are making code call a function
> rather than just read a variable gives you a very strong tool to make
> sure that someone can't blindly read a 0 or whatever instead of the
> real value.
+1
I can work on a new patch if this is the direction we want to go. There
were a couple of functions that called GetMaxBackends() repetitively that I
should probably fix before the patch should be seriously considered.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
