| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, 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: | 2021-08-06 02:56:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20210806025649.aa3scndaibiyhq6u@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-08-05 20:02:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > First, what do we want to do with BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS? I'm inclined to treat
> > it as a required flag going forward.
>
> +1
>
> > 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.
>
> I think doing nothing is fine. Given the lack of complaints, we're
> more likely to break something than fix anything useful.
Done in the attached patch. I don't think we need to add more to the docs than
the flag being required?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Remove-support-for-background-workers-without-BGWORK.patch | text/x-diff | 8.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-06 02:58:04 | Re: Numeric x^y for negative x |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-08-06 02:53:54 | Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful |