Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> What's the argument against?
> Complexity for the bgw usecase. They'd be completely different implementations and code paths, no? For pg_upgrade to use such a thing it'd need to be a connection parameter of some sort (implying, eg, infrastructure in libpq), while for a bgworker there's no such animal as connection parameters because there's no connection. Certainly what pg_upgrade has to do is a bit ugly, but you'd be adding an awful lot of code to get rid of a small amount of code. Doesn't seem like a great tradeoff. Even if it is a good tradeoff, it seems entirely unrelated to the bgworker's problem. regards, tom lane