On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Robert Haas escribió: >>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >>> > LOG: worker process: test_shm_mq (PID 22041) exited with exit code 1 >>> > LOG: unregistering background worker "test_shm_mq" >>> >>> This is (perhaps unfortunately) required by the background-worker API. >>> When a process exits with code 0, it's immediately restarted >>> regardless of the restart-time setting. To get the system to respect >>> the restart time (in this case, "never") you have to make it exit with >>> code 1. It's been like this since the beginning, and I wasn't in a >>> hurry to change it even though it seems odd to me. Perhaps we should >>> revisit that decision. >> >> Yeah, it's probably better to do it now rather than waiting. When this >> API was invented there wasn't any thought given to the idea of workers >> that wouldn't be always up. > > Well, what do we want the semantics to be, then? Right now we have this: > > 0: restart immediately > 1: restart based on the restart interval With a 9.3 bgworker, restart interval is respected if exit code is non-zero, worker exists immediately in case of ERROR or FATAL with exit code 1.
> What should we have instead? > > I think it might be nice to have an exit code that means "never > restart, regardless of the restart interval". I imagine that to be useful, using 2 to avoid breaking currently existing bgworkers. Perhaps it would be nicer to associate some error flags directly in the bgworker API with something of the type: #define BGW_EXIT_RESTART_NOW 0 #define BGW_EXIT_RESTART_INTERVAL 1 #define BGW_EXIT_STOP_FORCE 2 And all the other error codes could point by default to 1. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
