| From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP |
| Date: | 2012-12-31 16:05:21 |
| Message-ID: | 1356969921.1967.10.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 12:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 11:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > I think this (have a config option, and have SIGHUP work as expected)
> > > would be useful to demo in worker_spi, if you care to submit a patch.
> >
> > Yeah, I would love too. Reading the code of worker_spi, we could add one
> > or three parameters: a naptime, and the schemaname for both bgprocess.
> > One would be enough or do you prefer all three?
>
> I got no problem with three.
>
OK, will do on wednesday.
Thanks.
--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2012-12-31 16:51:41 | Re: PATCH: optimized DROP of multiple tables within a transaction |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-12-31 15:54:26 | Re: Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP |