Re: Regarding BGworkers

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Regarding BGworkers
Date: 2013-08-14 00:07:06
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSN1mi5bAmz6X-u9h11bbbwBzGDWbnhaW8DCc9P4VH_1w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> maybe_start_bgworker() in postmaster.c
> do_start_bgworker() in postmaster.c
> StartBackgroundWorker() in bgworker.c
This formulation is fine, thanks. Instead of maybe_start_bgworker,
what about start_bgworker_if_necessary?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2013-08-14 00:22:06 Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2013-08-13 22:13:53 Re: [GENERAL] Possible bug with row_to_json