Re: Wake up autovacuum launcher from postmaster when a worker exits
| От | Masahiko Sawada |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Wake up autovacuum launcher from postmaster when a worker exits |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAD21AoDGYt09cW7D=_zx2b0orcE9uF7YRxrin1Vtmgb99xEMeA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Wake up autovacuum launcher from postmaster when a worker exits (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>) |
| Ответы |
RE: Wake up autovacuum launcher from postmaster when a worker exits
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 11:57 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote: > > When an autovacuum worker exits, ProcKill() sends SIGUSR2 to the > launcher. I propose moving that responsibility to the postmaster, because: > > * It's simpler IMHO > > * The postmaster is already responsible for sending the signal if fork() > fails > > * It makes it consistent with background workers. When a background > worker exits, the postmaster sends the signal to the launching process > (if requested). > > * Postmaster doesn't need to worry about sending the signal to the wrong > process if the launcher's PID is reused, because it always has > up-to-date PID information, because the launcher is postmaster's child > process. That risk was negligible to begin with, but this eliminates > completely, so we don't need the comment excusing it it anymore. It sounds reasonable to me too. +1. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: