On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 07:01:32PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > On 1/7/22, 12:27 PM, "Robert Haas" <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 1:09 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: >>> While that approach would provide a way to safely retrieve the value, >>> I think it would do little to prevent the issue in practice. If the >>> size of the patch is a concern, we could also convert MaxBackends into >>> a macro for calling GetMaxBackends(). This could also be a nice way >>> to avoid breaking extensions that are using it correctly while >>> triggering ERRORs for extensions that are using it incorrectly. I've >>> attached a new version of the patch that does it this way. >> >> That's too magical for my taste. > > Fair point. v4 [0] is the less magical version.
So, where are we on this patch? It looks like there is an agreement that MaxBackends is used widely enough that it justifies the use of a separate function to set and get a better value computed. There may be other parameters that could use a brush up, but most known cases would be addressed here. v4 looks rather straight-forward, at quick glance. (I'd also prefer the less magical version.) -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
