On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Yes. But, as Robert suggested up in the thread, we should not use >> (parallel_register_count = 0) as an alternative to define a bgworker >> crash. Hence, I've added an argument named 'wasCrashed' in >> ForgetBackgroundWorker to indicate a bgworker crash. > > Did you intend to attach that patch to this email? > Actually, I'm confused how we should ensure (register_count > terminate_count) invariant. I think there can be a system crash what Tomas has suggested up in the thread.
Assert(parallel_register_count - parallel_terminate_count <= max_parallel_workers); Backend 1 > SET max_parallel_worker = 8; Backend 1 > Execute a long running parallel query q1 with number of parallel worker spawned is say, 4. Backend 2> SET max_parallel_worker = 3; Backend 2 > Try to execute any parallel query q2 with number of parallel worker spawned > 0. The above assert statement will bring down the server unnecessarily while executing q2. If the assert statement was not there, it could have gone ahead without launching any workers. -- Thanks & Regards, Kuntal Ghosh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
