| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fix bgworkers in EXEC_BACKEND |
| Date: | 2012-12-27 19:08:11 |
| Message-ID: | 16979.1356635291@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Simon,
> * Simon Riggs (simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>> I admire your forward thinking on that; yes, that could cause
>> problems. But even then, we would be admitting that nobody now gets a
>> valid value of MaxBackends, which sounds like it might be a problem in
>> itself.
> I agree that the current implementation could lead to problems/confusion
> for contrib module authors, if they're doing something with MaxBackends.
This is more or less a necessary consequence of the fact that _init
functions are now allowed to add background workers. If there is any
code today that expects MaxBackends to be correct at
preload_shared_libraries time, it's already been broken irretrievably
by the bgworkers patch; and we'd be well advised to make that breakage
obvious not subtle.
So I'm +1 for Heikki's proposal as well.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-12-27 20:46:45 | Re: fix bgworkers in EXEC_BACKEND |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-12-27 18:49:13 | Re: fix bgworkers in EXEC_BACKEND |