On 2021-08-05 19:56:49 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Done in the attached patch. I don't think we need to add more to the docs than
> the flag being required?
Pushed that patch now. If we want further additions to the docs we can
do so separately.
On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 11:07:14AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 8:02 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think doing nothing is fine. Given the lack of complaints, we're
>> more likely to break something than fix anything useful.
>
> +1.
FWIW, the only interesting case I have in my pl
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 8:02 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I think doing nothing is fine. Given the lack of complaints, we're
> more likely to break something than fix anything useful.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi,
On 2021-08-05 20:02:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > First, what do we want to do with BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS? I'm inclined to
> > treat
> > it as a required flag going forward.
>
> +1
>
> > The second question is what we want to do in the backbranches. I think the
> >
Andres Freund writes:
> First, what do we want to do with BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS? I'm inclined to treat
> it as a required flag going forward.
+1
> The second question is what we want to do in the backbranches. I think the
> reasonable options are to do nothing, or to make !BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS
Hi,
On 2021-08-02 15:34:07 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ah, that makes sense. That doesn't sound super fragile, but it is odd
> and it's probably a good argument for removing the feature, particularly
> since nobody seems to be using it.
ISTM we concluded that we should remove unconnected work
On 2021-Aug-02, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021, at 12:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Hmm, I don't remember that an shmem-unconnected bgworker first connected
> > to it and then let go. It seems weird to do it that way. My intention,
> > as far as I recall, is that they would just nev
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021, at 12:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Aug-02, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I do think there's some potential gains in simplicity and robustness
> > that are made mildly harder by a subprocess that first attaches and
> > detaches from shm (it's the only case where we can't
On 2021-Aug-02, Andres Freund wrote:
> > When I included this case I was thinking in tasks which would just run
> > stuff not directly connected to data. Something like a sub-daemon: say
> > a connection pooler, which is a bgworker just so that it starts and
> > stops together with postmaster, an
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021, at 11:08, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Aug-02, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Robert Haas writes:
> > > If you're saying that this code has been 100% broken for 7 years and
> > > nobody's noticed until now, then that suggests that nobody actually
> > > uses non-shmem-connected
On 2021-Aug-02, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > If you're saying that this code has been 100% broken for 7 years and
> > nobody's noticed until now, then that suggests that nobody actually
> > uses non-shmem-connected bgworkers. I sort of hate to give up on that
> > concept but if we've
Hi,
On 2021-08-02 11:00:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > If you're saying that this code has been 100% broken for 7 years and
> > nobody's noticed until now, then that suggests that nobody actually
> > uses non-shmem-connected bgworkers. I sort of hate to give up on that
> > co
Robert Haas writes:
> If you're saying that this code has been 100% broken for 7 years and
> nobody's noticed until now, then that suggests that nobody actually
> uses non-shmem-connected bgworkers. I sort of hate to give up on that
> concept but if we've really gone that many years without anyone
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 2:51 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> which presents a problem: We've initialized all kind of references to shared
> memory, own a PGPROC, but have detached from shared memory.
>
> In practice this will lead pretty quickly to a segfault, because process exit
> will run proc_exit ca
Hi,
On 2021-08-01 23:51:16 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> In practice this will lead pretty quickly to a segfault, because process exit
> will run proc_exit callbacks, which in turn will try to do a ProcKill(). Or
> logging dereferences MyProc, or ...
>
> It seems the above code block would need t
Hi,
While looking at a patch I noticed that SubPostmasterMain() for bgworkers
unconditionally does
/* Need a PGPROC to run CreateSharedMemoryAndSemaphores */
InitProcess();
which presents a problem, because StartBackgroundWorker() then does
/*
*
16 matches
Mail list logo
