Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> Simon,
> * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> I admire your forward thinking on that; yes, that could cause
>> problems. But even then, we would be admitting that nobody now gets a
>> valid value of MaxBackends, which sounds like it might be a problem in
>> itself.
> I agree that the current implementation could lead to problems/confusion
> for contrib module authors, if they're doing something with MaxBackends.
This is more or less a necessary consequence of the fact that _init
functions are now allowed to add background workers. If there is any
code today that expects MaxBackends to be correct at
preload_shared_libraries time, it's already been broken irretrievably
by the bgworkers patch; and we'd be well advised to make that breakage
obvious not subtle.
So I'm +1 for Heikki's proposal as well.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
