Re: background sessions

From: amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Borodin <amborodin(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: background sessions
Date: 2017-01-05 05:42:51
Message-ID: CAAJ_b97qEYo9B1NVTunP-vBM2rmiAdS+H2RPfeeBCYrcxFJ7MQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com> wrote:
> 2017-01-04 10:23 GMT+05:00 amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> One more query, can we modify
>> BackgroundSessionStart()/BackgroundSession struct to get background
>> worker PID as well?
> I think since session always has a PID it's absoultley reasonable to return PID.
>
>> I can understand this requirement could be sound useless for now,
>> because it only for the benefit of pg_background contrib module only.
> As far as i can unserstand BackgroundSession is not just a feature
> itself, it's the API. So PID would benefit to pg_background and all
> API use cases we didn't implement yet. I do not think that one PID in
> structure will waste huge amount of memory, cycles, dev time,
> readbility of docs, clearness of API etc. AFAIK the only reason may be
> if the PID is not always there.
>

+1, but to make BackgroundSession member accessible outside of
bgsession.c, we might need to moved BackgroundSession definition to
bgsession.h.

Regards,
Amul Sul

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kuntal Ghosh 2017-01-05 05:54:24 Re: WAL consistency check facility
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-01-05 05:12:09 Re: Logical decoding on standby