On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > Here's another attempt at moving this one forward. Basically this adds a > new GucSource being GUC_S_CLIENT_EARLY. It now runs through the parameters > once before CheckMyDatabase, with source set to GUC_S_CLIENT_EARLY. In this > source, *only* parameters that are flagged as GUC_ALLOW_EARLY will be set, > any other parameters are ignored (without error). For now, only the > ignore_connection_restriction is allowed at this stage. Then it runs > CheckMyDatabase(), and after that it runs through all the parameters again, > now with the GUC_S_CLIENT source as usual, which will now process all > other variables.
Ick. This is an improvement over the other way of attacking the problem? I do not think so.
Nope, I'm far from sure that it is. I just wanted to show what it'd look like.
I personally think the second patch (the one adding a parameter to BackendWorkerInitializeConnection) is the cleanest one. It doesn't solve Andres' problem, but perhaps that should be the job of a different patch.
FWIW, I just realized that thue poc patch that adds the GUC also breaks a large part of the regression tests. As a side-effect of it breaking how DateStyle works. That's obviously a fixable problem, but it seems not worth spending time on if that's not the way forward anyway.
Andres, do you have any other ideas of directions to look that would make you withdraw your objection? I'm happy to try to write up a patch that solves it in a way that everybody can agree with. But right now it seems to be stuck between one way that's strongly objected to by you and one way that's strongly objected to by Tom. And I'd rather not have that end up with not getting the problem solved at all for *any* of the usecases...