Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP

2013-04-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > worker_spi.naptime is the naptime between two checks. > worker_spi.total_workers is the number of workers to launch at > postmaster start time. The first one can change with a sighup, the last > one obviously needs a restart. Many thanks. Pushed as http://git.postgres

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP

2013-01-03 Thread Guillaume Lelarge
On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 17:44 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > > > On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 11:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > > > I think this (have a config option, and have SIGHUP work as expected) > > > > would be useful to demo in worker_s

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP

2012-12-31 Thread Guillaume Lelarge
On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 12:54 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 11:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > I think this (have a config option, and have SIGHUP work as expected) > > > would be useful to demo in worker_spi, if you care to submit a patch.

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP

2012-12-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 11:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I think this (have a config option, and have SIGHUP work as expected) > > would be useful to demo in worker_spi, if you care to submit a patch. > > Yeah, I would love too. Reading the code of worker_spi, we co

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP

2012-12-31 Thread Guillaume Lelarge
On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 11:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Today, I tried to make fun with the new background worker processes in > > 9.3, but I found something disturbing, and need help to go further. > > Thanks. > > > Is it the work of the function (poi

Re: [HACKERS] Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP

2012-12-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > Hi, > > Today, I tried to make fun with the new background worker processes in > 9.3, but I found something disturbing, and need help to go further. Thanks. > Is it the work of the function (pointed by bgw_sighup) to get the new > config values from the postmaster? and

[HACKERS] Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP

2012-12-28 Thread Guillaume Lelarge
Hi, Today, I tried to make fun with the new background worker processes in 9.3, but I found something disturbing, and need help to go further. My code is available on https://github.com/gleu/stats_recorder. If you take a look, it is basically a copy of Alvarro's worker_spi contrib module with a f