Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

2022-09-01 Thread Andrey Lepikhov
On 1/12/18 20:51, Teodor Sigaev wrote: In perspective, this mechanism provides the low-level instrument to define remote procedure call on extension side. The simple RPC that defines effective userid on remote backend (remote_effective_user function) is attached for example. 7) Suppose, API

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

2018-03-05 Thread David Steele
Hi Maksim, On 3/5/18 11:24 AM, Maksim Milyutin wrote: > Hello David, > > > On 05.03.2018 18:50, David Steele wrote: >> Hello Maksim, >> >> On 1/27/18 2:19 PM, Arthur Zakirov wrote: >> >>> Is there actual need in UnregisterCustomProcSignal() within _PG_init()? >>> An extension registers a

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

2018-03-05 Thread Maksim Milyutin
Hello David, On 05.03.2018 18:50, David Steele wrote: Hello Maksim, On 1/27/18 2:19 PM, Arthur Zakirov wrote: Is there actual need in UnregisterCustomProcSignal() within _PG_init()? An extension registers a handler and then unregister it doing nothing. It seems useless. Also

Re: Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

2018-03-05 Thread David Steele
Hello Maksim, On 1/27/18 2:19 PM, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:34:58PM +0300, Maksim Milyutin wrote: > > The patch is applied and build. > >> +/* >> + * UnregisterCustomProcSignal >> + * Release slot of specific custom signal. >> + * >> + * This function have to be

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

2018-01-27 Thread Arthur Zakirov
Hello, On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:34:58PM +0300, Maksim Milyutin wrote: > ... > I have attached a new version of patch and updated version of > remote_effective_user function implementation that demonstrates the usage of > custom signals API. Thank you. The patch is applied and build. > +/* >

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

2018-01-22 Thread Maksim Milyutin
Hello! On 11.01.2018 18:53, Arthur Zakirov wrote: The relationship between custom signals and assigned handlers (function addresses) is replicated from postmaster to child processes including working backends. I think this happens only if a custom signal registered during initializing

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

2018-01-22 Thread Maksim Milyutin
On 12.01.2018 18:51, Teodor Sigaev wrote: In perspective, this mechanism provides the low-level instrument to define remote procedure call on extension side. The simple RPC that defines effective userid on remote backend (remote_effective_user function) is attached for example. Suppose,

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

2018-01-12 Thread Teodor Sigaev
In perspective, this mechanism provides the low-level instrument to define remote procedure call on extension side. The simple RPC that defines effective userid on remote backend (remote_effective_user function) is attached for example. Suppose, it's useful patch. Some notes: 1)

Re: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

2018-01-11 Thread Arthur Zakirov
Hello, On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 03:05:25PM +0300, Maksim Milyutin wrote: > Hi, hackers! > > > I want to propose the patch that allows to define custom signals and their > handlers on extension side. > I've looked a little bit on the patch. The patch applyes and regression tests pass. I have a

[HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions

2017-12-22 Thread Maksim Milyutin
Hi, hackers! I want to propose the patch that allows to define custom signals and their handlers on extension side. It is based on ProcSignal module, namely it defines the fixed set (number is specified by constant) of custom signals that could be reserved on postgres initialization stage