Re: putting a bgworker to rest

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andres Freund
Тема Re: putting a bgworker to rest
Дата
Msg-id 20130423160755.GG8499@alap2.anarazel.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: putting a bgworker to rest  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: putting a bgworker to rest  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: putting a bgworker to rest  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 2013-04-23 11:59:43 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I noticed the need to simply stop a bgworker after its work is done but
> > still have it restart in unusual circumstances like a crash.
> > Obviously I can just have it enter a loop where it checks its latch and
> > such, but that seems a bit pointless.
> > 
> > Would it make sense to add an extra return value or such for that?
> 
> KaiGai also requested some more flexibility in the stop timing and
> shutdown sequence.  I understand the current design that workers are
> always on can be a bit annoying.
> 
> How would postmaster know when to restart a worker that stopped?

I had imagined we would assign some return codes special
meaning. Currently 0 basically means "restart immediately", 1 means
"crashed, wait for some time", everything else results in a postmaster
restart. It seems we can just assign returncode 2 as "done", probably
with some enum or such hiding the numbers.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Couple of issues with pg_xlogdump
Следующее
От: David Fetter
Дата:
Сообщение: Bug Fix: COLLATE with multiple ORDER BYs in aggregates