On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas escribió: >> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> > LOG: worker process: test_shm_mq (PID 22041) exited with exit code 1 >> > LOG: unregistering background worker "test_shm_mq" >> >> This is (perhaps unfortunately) required by the background-worker API. >> When a process exits with code 0, it's immediately restarted >> regardless of the restart-time setting. To get the system to respect >> the restart time (in this case, "never") you have to make it exit with >> code 1. It's been like this since the beginning, and I wasn't in a >> hurry to change it even though it seems odd to me. Perhaps we should >> revisit that decision. > > Yeah, it's probably better to do it now rather than waiting. When this > API was invented there wasn't any thought given to the idea of workers > that wouldn't be always up.
Well, what do we want the semantics to be, then? Right now we have this: 0: restart immediately 1: restart based on the restart interval What should we have instead? I think it might be nice to have an exit code that means "never restart, regardless of the restart interval". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
