Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (michael@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> 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.
Yes, it couldn't be exactly the same as a generic background worker,
that's a good point. We definitely need to make sure that the
postmaster waits for the archiver to shut down, as it does for the WAL
senders.
Thanks!
Stephen