On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:29 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> writes: > > Do you think that it's okay that we rely on the propagation of global > > state to parallel workers on Postgres 13? Don't we need something like > > my fixup commit 49f49def on Postgres 13 as well? At least for the > > EXEC_BACKEND case, I think. > > Uh ... *what* propagation of global state to parallel workers? Workers > fork off from the postmaster, not from their leader process. > > (I note that morepork is still failing. The other ones didn't report > in yet.)
Evidently my fixup commit 49f49def was written in way too much of a panic. I'm going to push a new fix shortly. This will make workers do their own GetAccessStrategy(BAS_VACUUM), just to get the buildfarm green. REL_13_STABLE will need to be considered separately. I still haven't figured out how this ever appeared to work for this long. The vac_strategy/bstrategy state simply wasn't propagated at all. -- Peter Geoghegan
