From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Support worker_spi to execute the function dynamically. |
Date: | 2023-07-28 05:17:39 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACWQvLCHD6XLACtbzOu1861RbQ0LdpoVpNHJuvYZovsOpw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 10:15 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> Having each bgworker on its own schema would be enough to prevent
> conflicts, but I'd like to add a second thing: a check on
> pg_stat_activity.wait_event after starting the workers. I have added
> something like that in the patch I have posted today for the custom
> wait events at [1] and it enforces the startup sequences of the
> workers in a stricter way.
>
> Does the attached take care of your issue?
+# check their existence. Use IDs that do not overlap with the schemas created
+# by the previous workers.
While using different IDs in tests is a simple fix, -1 for it. I'd
prefer if worker_spi uses different schema prefixes for static and
dynamic bg workers to avoid conflicts. We can either look at
MyBgworkerEntry->bgw_type in worker_spi_main and have schema name as
'{static, dyamic}_worker_schema_%d', id or pass schema name in
bgw_extra.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2023-07-28 05:37:49 | Re: Add assertion on held AddinShmemInitLock in GetNamedLWLockTranche() |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-07-28 04:45:29 | Re: Support worker_spi to execute the function dynamically. |