Обсуждение: [PATCH] Modify pg_ctl to detect presence of geek user

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

[PATCH] Modify pg_ctl to detect presence of geek user

От
Panda Developpeur
Дата:

Dear PostgreSQL Hackers,

I am submitting a patch to modify pg_ctl to detect the presence of a geek user on the system and adapt its behavior accordingly. This patch introduces the following changes:

  1. Detection of geek user: The modified pg_ctl now checks user created on the computer.

  2. No documentation or tests: Please note that I have not included new documentation or tests in this patch submission. However, I am open to adding them based on the community's feedback.

  3. Performance impact: The performance impact of these changes is minimal, with an expected delay of 500ms in specific scenarios only.


Please review the patch and provide your feedback. I am open to making any necessary improvements based on the community's suggestions.

Thank you for considering my contribution.

Best regards,

Вложения

Re: [PATCH] Modify pg_ctl to detect presence of geek user

От
Bruce Momjian
Дата:
On Wed, Apr  3, 2024 at 04:17:21PM +0300, Panda Developpeur wrote:
> Dear PostgreSQL Hackers,
> 
> I am submitting a patch to modify pg_ctl to detect the presence of a geek user
> on the system and adapt its behavior accordingly. This patch introduces the
> following changes:
> 
>  1. Detection of geek user: The modified pg_ctl now checks user created on the
>     computer.
> 
>  2. No documentation or tests: Please note that I have not included new
>     documentation or tests in this patch submission. However, I am open to
>     adding them based on the community's feedback.
> 
>  3. Performance impact: The performance impact of these changes is minimal,
>     with an expected delay of 500ms in specific scenarios only.
> 
> 
> Please review the patch and provide your feedback. I am open to making any
> necessary improvements based on the community's suggestions.
> 
> Thank you for considering my contribution.

Aside from an extra newline in the patch, I think this is ready to go!

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.



Re: [PATCH] Modify pg_ctl to detect presence of geek user

От
Bruce Momjian
Дата:
On Wed, Apr  3, 2024 at 09:25:02AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Apr  3, 2024 at 04:17:21PM +0300, Panda Developpeur wrote:
> > Dear PostgreSQL Hackers,
> > 
> > I am submitting a patch to modify pg_ctl to detect the presence of a geek user
> > on the system and adapt its behavior accordingly. This patch introduces the
> > following changes:
> > 
> >  1. Detection of geek user: The modified pg_ctl now checks user created on the
> >     computer.
> > 
> >  2. No documentation or tests: Please note that I have not included new
> >     documentation or tests in this patch submission. However, I am open to
> >     adding them based on the community's feedback.
> > 
> >  3. Performance impact: The performance impact of these changes is minimal,
> >     with an expected delay of 500ms in specific scenarios only.
> > 
> > 
> > Please review the patch and provide your feedback. I am open to making any
> > necessary improvements based on the community's suggestions.
> > 
> > Thank you for considering my contribution.
> 
> Aside from an extra newline in the patch, I think this is ready to go!

Also, it feels like the deadline for this patch was two days ago.  ;-)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.



Re: [PATCH] Modify pg_ctl to detect presence of geek user

От
Panda Developpeur
Дата:
Yeah sorry for the delay, it took me some time to understood how build, modify and test the modification

Re: [PATCH] Modify pg_ctl to detect presence of geek user

От
"Andrey M. Borodin"
Дата:

> On 3 Apr 2024, at 18:17, Panda Developpeur <panda.developpeur@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for considering my contribution.

Looks interesting!

+                    usleep(500000);

Don't we need to make system 500ms faster instead? Let's change it to

+                    usleep(-500000);

Thanks!


Best regards, Andrey Borodin.