Re: bgworker crashed or not?

On 16/04/14 18:34, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 2014-04-16 12:20:01 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I'm still not seeing the problem. It's the background worker's job to
>>> make sure that the right stuff gets logged, just as it would be for
>>> any other backend. Trying to bolt some portion of the responsibility
>>> for that onto the postmaster is 100% wrong.
>>
>> Well, it already has taken on that responsibility, it's not my idea to
>> add it. I merely want to control more precisely what happens.s
>
> I think that's doubling down on an already-questionable design principle.
>
> Or if I may be permitted a more colloquial idiom:
>
> Luke, it's a trap.
>

Well the logging is just too spammy in general when it comes to dynamic
bgworkers but that's easy to fix in the future, no need to make
decisions for 9.4.

However I really don't like that I have to exit with exit code 1, which
is normally used as failure, if I want to shutdown my dynamic bgworker
once it has finished the work. And this behavior is something we can set
properly only once...

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