Horton

Re: Patch proposal: New hooks in the connection path

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-07-07T20:10:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add pg_stat_database counters for sessions and session time

Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> It isn't clear to me if having a hook in the timeout handler is a 
> nonstarter -- perhaps a comment with suitable warning for prospective 
> extension authors is enough? Anyone else want to weigh in on this issue 
> specifically?

It doesn't seem like a great place for a hook, because the list of stuff
you could safely do there would be mighty short, possibly the empty set.
Write to shared memory?  Not too safe.  Write to a file?  Even less.
Write to local memory?  Pointless, because we're about to _exit(1).
Pretty much anything I can think of that you'd want to do is something
we've already decided the core code can't safely do, and putting it
in a hook won't make it safer.

If someone wants to argue for this hook, I'd like to see a credible
example of a *safe* use-case, keeping in mind the points raised in
the comments in BackendInitialize and process_startup_packet_die.

			regards, tom lane