On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> Suppose a user backend starts a background worker for some purpose;
> the background worker dies with an error. The infrastructure we have
> today is sufficient for the user backend to discover that the worker
> backend has died, but not why
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 22/05/14 06:21, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The main thing I'm not sure about is how to format the message that we
>> write to the shm_mq. One option is to try to use the good old FEBE
>> protocol. This doesn't look entirely straightforward, be
On 22/05/14 06:21, Robert Haas wrote:
The main thing I'm not sure about is how to format the message that we
write to the shm_mq. One option is to try to use the good old FEBE
protocol. This doesn't look entirely straightforward, because
send_message_to_frontend() assembles the message using p
Suppose a user backend starts a background worker for some purpose;
the background worker dies with an error. The infrastructure we have
today is sufficient for the user backend to discover that the worker
backend has died, but not why. There might be an error in the server
log, but the error inf
