On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Agreed, but after further reflection it seems like if you've declared >> a restart interval, then "done until restart interval" is probably the >> common case. So how about >> >> exit(0) - done until restart interval, or permanently if there is none >> exit(1) - done permanently, even if a restart interval was declared >> exit(other) - crash >> >> I don't offhand see a point in an "exit and restart immediately" case. >> Why exit at all, if you could just keep running? If you *can't* just >> keep running, it probably means you know you've bollixed something, >> so that the crash case is probably what to do anyway. > > There's the case where you want to quickly go over all the databases, > but only use one bgworker for it. I don't think there's another way to > do that. > > I think we really should bite the bullet and change this before 9.4 > comes out. The current static bgworker facility has only been out there > for one release, and dynamic bgworkers aren't released yet at all. If we > wait with this for 9.5, we'll annoy many more people.
So, exactly what do you want to change? If you want to keep the restart-immediately behavior, then that argues for NOT changing exit(0). I actually think the right answer here might be to give background workers a way to change their configured restart interval. We've already got a shared memory area that the postmaster reads to know how what to do when starting a dynamic background worker, so it probably wouldn't be that hard. But I'm not volunteering to undertake that on April 16th. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
