Re: bgworker crashed or not?

From: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: bgworker crashed or not?
Date: 2014-04-28 20:19:23
Message-ID: 535EB7CB.3020807@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 28/04/14 16:27, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 04/17/2014 08:35 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> I've just noticed that the bgworker control interfaces do not honour
>> bgw.bgw_restart_time = BGW_NEVER_RESTART if you exit with status zero.
>>
>> This means that it's not simply a problem where you can't say "restart
>> me if I crash, but not if I exit normally".
>>
>> You also can't even say "never restart me at all". Because
>> "BGW_NEVER_RESTART" seems to really mean "BGW_NO_RESTART_ON_CRASH".
>>
>> This _needs_fixing before 9.4.
>
> It seems we have consensus on what to do about this, but what we
> haven't got is a patch.
>

If you mean the consensus that exit status 0 should mean permanent stop
then I think the patch can be as simple as attached.

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

Attachment Content-Type Size
unregister-bgworker-on-exit0.diff text/x-patch 490 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2014-04-28 20:24:59 Re: shm_mq inconsistent behavior of SHM_MQ_DETACHED
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-04-28 19:32:32 Re: includedir_internal headers are not self-contained