Hi, On 2013-07-19 08:23:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > The changes here make it impossible to write a bgworker which properly > > works in 9.3 and 9.4. Was that intended? If so, the commit message > > should mention the compatibility break... > > Yeah, sorry, I probably should have mentioned that. The structure > needs to be fixed size for us to store it in shared memory.
> > If it was intended I propose changing the signature for 9.3 as > > well. There's just no point in releasing 9.3 when we already know which > > trivial but breaking change will be required for 9.4 > > I think that would be a good idea. > And I'd also propose getting rid > of bgw_sighup and bgw_sigterm in both branches, while we're at it. > AFAICT, they don't add any functionality, and they're basically > unusable for dynamically started background workers. Probably better > not to get people to used to using them. I don't have a problem with getting rid of those, it's easy enough to register them inside the worker and it's safe since we start with blocked signals. I seem to remember some discussion about why they were added but I can't find a reference anymore. Alvaro, do you remember? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
