On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 09:39:58PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Having discussed this quite a bit lately with David Steele and Magnus,
> it's pretty clear that we need to completely rip out how this works
> today and rewrite it based around an extension model where a background
> worker can start up and essentially take the place of the archiver
> process, with flexibility to jump forward through the WAL stream,
> communicate clearly with other processes, handle failure to do so
> gracefully based on the specific cases, etc.
Hm. When an instance state is in PM_SHUTDOWN_2, the postmaster
explicitely waits for the WAL senders and the archiver to shut down. So
I think that you would need more control regarding the timing a bgworker
should be shut down first to be completely correct.
--
Michael