On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 08:32:39AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:53 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unless I'm missing something, the new situation is that the system is supposed
> > to prevent access to MaxBackends during s_p_l_pg_init, for reasons I totally
> > agree with, but without doing anything for extensions that actually need to
> > access it at that time. So what are extensions supposed to do now if they do
> > need the information during their _PG_init() / RequestAddinShmemSpace()?
>
> Well, the conclusion upthread was that extensions might change the
> values of those GUCs from _PG_init(). If that's a real thing, then
> what you're asking for here is impossible, because the final value is
> indeterminate until all such extensions have finished twiddling those
> the GUCs. On the other hand, it's definitely intended that extensions
> should RequestAddinShmemSpace() from _PG_init(), and wanting to size
> that memory based on MaxBackends is totally reasonable. Do we need to
> add another function, alongside _PG_init(), that gets called after
> MaxBackends is determined and before it's too late to
> RequestAddinShmemSpace()?
Yes, I don't see how we can support such extensions without an additional hook,
probably called right after InitializeMaxBackends() since at least
InitializeShmemGUCs() will need to know about those extra memory needs.
I'm not sure how to prevent third party code from messing with the gucs in it,
but a clear indication in the hook comment should probably be enough. It's not
like it's hard for third-party code author to break something anyway.
And should we do something about MaxConnections, autovacuum_max_workers,
max_worker_processes and max_wal_senders too? It's unlikely that I'm the only
one who's computing my own MaxBackends to workaround the previous 0 value that
was available during _PG_init, and I'm not sure that everyone will notice such
a new hook.
