Re: bgworker crashed or not?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Antonin Houska <antonin(dot)houska(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bgworker crashed or not?
Date: 2014-04-16 15:44:12
Message-ID: 20140416154412.GL17874@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-04-16 11:37:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I think we probably also need a way to exit that's treated as an error,
> > but doesn't lead to a PANIC restart.
>
> Why can't that be handled through ereport(ERROR/FATAL) rather than
> through the choice of exit status? It seems to me that the only point
> of the exit status is or should be to provide feedback to the
> postmaster on how it should respond to the background worker's
> untimely demise. If any other information needs to be conveyed, the
> worker should log that itself rather than trying to tell the
> postmaster what to log.

I dislike that because it essentially requires the bgworker to have a
full error catching environment like PostgresMain() has. That seems
bad for many cases.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-04-16 15:54:25 Re: bgworker crashed or not?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-04-16 15:40:40 Re: test failure on latest source