| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death |
| Date: | 2021-03-24 03:25:18 |
| Message-ID: | YFqxHrZQC5mPIbMT@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:07:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> Thanks for that. Attached is just a rebased version with a commit
>> message added. If there aren't any other concerns, I'll commit this in
>> the next few days and back-patch it. When it comes to 12 and older,
>> does anyone want to opine about the wait event to use? I was thinking
>> PG_WAIT_TIMEOUT or WAIT_EVENT_PG_SLEEP ...
>
> I'm not sure if we should back-patch this, but I think if you do you
> should just add a wait event, rather than using a generic one.
I would not back-patch that either, as this is an improvement of the
current state. I agree that this had better introduce a new wait
event. Even if this stuff gets backpatched, you won't introduce an
ABI incompatibility with a new event as long as you add the new event
at the end of the existing enum lists, but let's keep the wait events
ordered on HEAD.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-03-24 03:54:32 | Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-03-24 03:11:47 | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |