On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 01:34:15PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2023-07-28 13:45:29 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Having each bgworker on its own schema would be enough to prevent >> conflicts, but I'd like to add a second thing: a check on >> pg_stat_activity.wait_event after starting the workers. I have added >> something like that in the patch I have posted today for the custom >> wait events at [1] and it enforces the startup sequences of the >> workers in a stricter way. > > Is that very meaningful? ISTM the interesting thing to check for would be that > the state is idle?
That's interesting for the sake of the other patch to check that the custom events are reported. Anyway, I am a bit short in time, so I have applied the simplest fix where the dynamic workers just use a different base ID to get out of your way. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature