Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Aleksander Alekseev
Subject Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example
Date
Msg-id CAJ7c6TNt7hoCvhRCZYYkYKYa1-PZ5_9VmuzoShhEiJHgEZwZqg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Julien,

> I'm pretty sure that this is intentional.  The worker can be launched
> dynamically and in that case it still needs a GUC for the naptime.

The dynamic worker also is going to need worker_spi_database, however
the corresponding GUC declaration is placed below the check.

Perhaps we should just say that the extension shouldn't be used
without shared_preload_libraies. We are not testing whether it works
in such a case anyway.

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example
Next
From: Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Subject: Should "REGRESS_OPTS = --temp-config" be working for 3rd party extensions?