On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 02:03:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:54:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > The main advantage of a read-only GUC over a function is that users
> > would not need to start a postmaster to know if huge pages would be
> > active or not. This is the main reason why a GUC would be a better
> > fit, in my opinion, because it makes for a cheaper check, while still
> > allowing a SQL query to check the value of the GUC.
>
> [ Should have read more carefully ]
>
> .. Which is something you cannot do with -C because mmap() happens
> after the runtime-computed logic for postgres -C. It does not sound
> right to do the mmap() for a GUC check, so indeed a function may be
> more adapted rather than move mmap() call a bit earlier in the
> postmaster startup sequence.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 02:17:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:09:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'm confused here, because Horiguchi-san is saying that that
> > won't work. I've not checked the code lately, but I think that
> > "postgres -C var" prints its results before actually attempting
> > to establish shared memory, so I suspect Horiguchi-san is right.
>
> Yes, I haven't read correctly through. Sorry for the noise.
You set this patch to "waiting on author" twice. Would you let me know
what I could do to help progress the patch? Right now, I have no idea.
Most recently, you said it'd be better implemented as a GUC to allow
using -C, but then recanted because -C doesn't work for this (which is
why I implemented it as a string back on 2023-02-08). Which is why I
reset its status on 2023-03-20.
2023-03-22 01:36:58 Michael Paquier (michael-kun) New status: Waiting on Author
2023-03-20 13:05:32 Justin Pryzby (justinpryzby) New status: Needs review
2023-03-20 05:03:53 Michael Paquier (michael-kun) New status: Waiting on Author
--
Justin
