From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS |
Date: | 2021-08-05 23:09:02 |
Message-ID: | 20210805230902.erwpnjuvykiasjxx@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-08-02 15:34:07 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ah, that makes sense. That doesn't sound super fragile, but it is odd
> and it's probably a good argument for removing the feature, particularly
> since nobody seems to be using it.
ISTM we concluded that we should remove unconnected workers. Writing a patch
to do so left me with two questions:
First, what do we want to do with BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS? I'm inclined to treat
it as a required flag going forward. That way we don't silently start being
attached to shared memory in case somebody actually has a unattached
worker. And if we ever wanted to add the ability to have unattached workers
back, it'll also be easier this way. Perhaps it also has a small amount of
signalling value reminding people that they need to be careful...
The second question is what we want to do in the backbranches. I think the
reasonable options are to do nothing, or to make !BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS an
error in SanityCheckBackgroundWorker() if EXEC_BACKEND is used.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-05 23:16:22 | Re: Assert triggered during RE_compile_and_cache |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-08-05 22:30:20 | Re: Accidentally dropped constraints: bug? |