Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> First, what do we want to do with BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS? I'm inclined to treat
> it as a required flag going forward.

+1

> The second question is what we want to do in the backbranches. I think the
> reasonable options are to do nothing, or to make !BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS an
> error in SanityCheckBackgroundWorker() if EXEC_BACKEND is used.

I think doing nothing is fine.  Given the lack of complaints, we're
more likely to break something than fix anything useful.

            regards, tom lane