On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> The changes here make it impossible to write a bgworker which properly >> works in 9.3 and 9.4. Was that intended? If so, the commit message >> should mention the compatibility break... > > Yeah, sorry, I probably should have mentioned that. The structure > needs to be fixed size for us to store it in shared memory. > >> If it was intended I propose changing the signature for 9.3 as >> well. There's just no point in releasing 9.3 when we already know which >> trivial but breaking change will be required for 9.4 > > I think that would be a good idea. And I'd also propose getting rid > of bgw_sighup and bgw_sigterm in both branches, while we're at it. > AFAICT, they don't add any functionality, and they're basically > unusable for dynamically started background workers. Probably better > not to get people to used to using them.
+1. Much better to take that pain now, before we have made a production release. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
