Re: Making BackgroundWorkerHandle a complete type or offering a worker enumeration API?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Making BackgroundWorkerHandle a complete type or offering a worker enumeration API?
Date: 2014-12-15 16:31:20
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaM8O6wY3LUiQXjTbyPHiCoVO9u3e1A+5HwSQrh98b6xw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> If that's not good for some reason, my second choice is adding a
>> BGWORKER_UNREGISTER_AFTER_CRASH flag. That seems much simpler and
>> less cumbersome than your other proposal.
>
> That'd be my preference.

OK, let's do that, then.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2014-12-15 16:34:49 Re: Making BackgroundWorkerHandle a complete type or offering a worker enumeration API?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-12-15 16:30:40 Re: Something is broken in logical decoding with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS