On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:04 PM John Naylor <jcnay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/13/18, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:38 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 09:42:45PM +0700, John Naylor wrote: > >> > Looks like it. A quick search revealed "parallel worker" and "logical > >> > replication worker". src/test/modules/ also show "test_shm_mq" and > >> > "worker_spi", but it seems those don't need to be publicly documented. > >> > If that sounds right I'll update the patch to include the first two. > >> > >> Just wondering: do we actually need to include in the docs this list at > >> all? This is a recipe to forget its update each time a new backend type > >> is added. > >> > > > > Sure, but how will we justify documenting (autovacuum launcher and > > autovacuum worker) and not (logical replication launcher and logical > > replication worker)? I think we can document the type of workers that > > are part of core-server functionality. We can make some generic > > statement on the workers that can be launched by extensions. > > How about something like the attached? >
Don't you need to remove <literal>background worker</literal>? + In addition, extensions may have additional types. How about: "In addition, background workers registered by extensions may have additional types."? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
