Hi,
On 2022-03-26 15:22:03 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 03:23:17PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > I don't really understand. The issue that started this thread was bugs in
> > extensions due to accessing MaxBackends before it is initialized - which the
> > patch prevents.
>
> Well, the patch prevents accessing a 0-valued MaxBackends but doesn't do
> anything to solve the original complaint. It's not like extensions won't need
> to access that information during _PG_init anymore.
It resolves the pretty common bug that an extension breaks once it's used via
s_p_l instead of loaded on-demand because MaxBackends isn't initialized in the
s_p_l case.
> And indeed, any third party code that previously needed to access what
> MaxBackends is supposed to store should already be using that formula, and
> the new GetMaxBackends() doesn't do anything about it.
It couldn't rely on MaxBackends before. It can't rely on GetMaxBackends()
now. You can see why I think that what you want is unrelated to the
introduction of GetMaxBackends().
If we introduce a separate hook that allows to influence things like
max_connections or whatnot we'd *even more* need a way to verify whether it's
legal to access MaxBackends in that moment.
> So all extensions will be as broken as before, except the few that were
> using MaxBackends without realizing it's 0. And if those exist (there's
> actually one) they're not that broken, probably because MaxBackend is only
> used to request additional shmem, with wanted value small enough so that
> it's compensated by the extra 100kB shmem postgres allocates.
I don't think it's rare at all.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
