Re: shared memory message queues

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>> > LOG: worker process: test_shm_mq (PID 22041) exited with exit code 1
>> > LOG: unregistering background worker "test_shm_mq"
>>
>> This is (perhaps unfortunately) required by the background-worker API.
>> When a process exits with code 0, it's immediately restarted
>> regardless of the restart-time setting. To get the system to respect
>> the restart time (in this case, "never") you have to make it exit with
>> code 1. It's been like this since the beginning, and I wasn't in a
>> hurry to change it even though it seems odd to me. Perhaps we should
>> revisit that decision.
>
> Yeah, it's probably better to do it now rather than waiting. When this
> API was invented there wasn't any thought given to the idea of workers
> that wouldn't be always up.

Well, what do we want the semantics to be, then? Right now we have this:

0: restart immediately
1: restart based on the restart interval

What should we have instead?

I think it might be nice to have an exit code that means "never
restart, regardless of the restart interval".

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