From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Would a BGW need shmem_access or database_connection to enumerate databases? |
Date: | 2017-11-29 23:34:24 |
Message-ID: | 20171129233424.qj4hcb3nlrji6gry@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-11-29 18:23:40 -0500, Chapman Flack wrote:
> On 11/29/2017 05:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> > Yes. That's actually what the autovacuum launcher does. It connects
> > using InitPostgres(NULL, InvalidOid, NULL, NULL), and then scans
> > pg_database to fetch a list (see get_database_list).
>
> Thanks! It looks like if get_database_list were not static, it
> would be just the thing I'm looking for.
>
> Would an SPI query of pg_database also work, in the
> bgw-connected-to-null-dbname context? I'm just wondering if
> that might be clearer/fewer LOC than just copying the lower-level
> approach from get_database_list.
SQL won't really work in a non-database connected context.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-11-29 23:40:36 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-11-29 23:30:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |