Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:23:18PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh. What in the world is the rationale for that?
> My assumption is that this is meant to avoid starting workers as fast as
> possible if they repeatedly crash.
I can see the point of rate-limiting if the workers are failing to connect
or crashing while trying to process data. But it's not very sane to
apply the same policy to an intentional worker exit-for-reconfiguration.
Maybe we could have workers that are exiting for that reason set a
flag saying "please restart me without delay"?
A *real* fix would be to not exit at all, at least for reconfigurations
that don't change the connection parameters, but instead cope with
recomputing whatever needs recomputed in the workers' state. I can
believe that that'd be a lot of work though.
regards, tom lane
