On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 07:01:32PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 1/7/22, 12:27 PM, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 1:09 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
>>> While that approach would provide a way to safely retrieve the value,
>>> I think it would do little to prevent the issue in practice. If the
>>> size of the patch is a concern, we could also convert MaxBackends into
>>> a macro for calling GetMaxBackends(). This could also be a nice way
>>> to avoid breaking extensions that are using it correctly while
>>> triggering ERRORs for extensions that are using it incorrectly. I've
>>> attached a new version of the patch that does it this way.
>>
>> That's too magical for my taste.
>
> Fair point. v4 [0] is the less magical version.
So, where are we on this patch? It looks like there is an agreement
that MaxBackends is used widely enough that it justifies the use of a
separate function to set and get a better value computed. There may
be other parameters that could use a brush up, but most known cases
would be addressed here. v4 looks rather straight-forward, at quick
glance.
(I'd also prefer the less magical version.)
--
Michael
