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
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 |