On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 02:03:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:54:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > The main advantage of a read-only GUC over a function is that users > > would not need to start a postmaster to know if huge pages would be > > active or not. This is the main reason why a GUC would be a better > > fit, in my opinion, because it makes for a cheaper check, while still > > allowing a SQL query to check the value of the GUC. > > [ Should have read more carefully ] > > .. Which is something you cannot do with -C because mmap() happens > after the runtime-computed logic for postgres -C. It does not sound > right to do the mmap() for a GUC check, so indeed a function may be > more adapted rather than move mmap() call a bit earlier in the > postmaster startup sequence.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 02:17:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:09:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I'm confused here, because Horiguchi-san is saying that that > > won't work. I've not checked the code lately, but I think that > > "postgres -C var" prints its results before actually attempting > > to establish shared memory, so I suspect Horiguchi-san is right. > > Yes, I haven't read correctly through. Sorry for the noise. You set this patch to "waiting on author" twice. Would you let me know what I could do to help progress the patch? Right now, I have no idea. Most recently, you said it'd be better implemented as a GUC to allow using -C, but then recanted because -C doesn't work for this (which is why I implemented it as a string back on 2023-02-08). Which is why I reset its status on 2023-03-20. 2023-03-22 01:36:58 Michael Paquier (michael-kun) New status: Waiting on Author 2023-03-20 13:05:32 Justin Pryzby (justinpryzby) New status: Needs review 2023-03-20 05:03:53 Michael Paquier (michael-kun) New status: Waiting on Author -- Justin