Re: Regarding BGworkers

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Regarding BGworkers
Date: 2013-08-06 01:20:25
Message-ID: CAB7nPqR=SPzPj5s0AhA-8Mt+WA4C4yv7B4i5mn0ZVk9Ev=BkVA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> That seems more mess than just keeping that function in postmaster.c.
> I agree with moving the other one.
Please find attached a patch for that can be applied on master branch.
do_start_bgworker is renamed to StartBackgroundWorker and moved to
bgworker.c. At the same time, bgworker_quickdie, bgworker_die and
bgworker_sigusr1_handler are moved to bgworker.c as they are used in
do_start_bgworker.

Regards,
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
20130806_bgworker_refactor_master.patch application/octet-stream 13.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2013-08-06 02:20:31 Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all?
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2013-08-06 01:17:16 Re: File-per-GUC WAS: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review])