RE: Connection limits/permissions, slotsync workers, etc

On Saturday, December 28, 2024 1:31 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thursday, December 26, 2024 3:50 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> >> I wonder if the AV launcher and slotsync worker could be reclassified
> >> as "auxiliary processes" instead of being their own weird animal.
>
> > It appears that the current aux processes do not run transactions as
> > stated in the comments[1], so we may need to somehow release this
> > restriction to achieve the goal.
>
> Ah, right, I'd forgotten about that restriction. I agree that removing it wouldn't
> be very reasonable. However, I still would rather avoid making the slotsync
> worker be its very own special snowflake, because that offers no support for
> the next person who wants to invent a new sort of specialized
> transaction-capable process.
>
> Attached is an alternative proposal that groups the autovac launcher and
> slotsync worker into a new category of "special workers" (better name
> welcome). I chose to put them into the existing autovacFreeProcs freelist,
> partly because the autovac launcher lives there already but mostly because I
> don't want to add another freelist in a patch we need to put into v17. (As
> written, your patch is an ABI break.

Right, thanks for pointing it out. The new version patch looks good to me.

Best Regards,
Hou zj