On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 04/17/2014 08:35 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 04/17/2014 04:47 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> >>> Well the logging is just too spammy in general when it comes to dynamic >>> bgworkers but that's easy to fix in the future, no need to make >>> decisions for 9.4. >> >> Agreed - it's the *API* that we need sorted out for 9.4, and log output >> isn't something Pg tends to consider part of the API. >> >>> However I really don't like that I have to exit with exit code 1, which >>> is normally used as failure, if I want to shutdown my dynamic bgworker >>> once it has finished the work. And this behavior is something we can set >>> properly only once... >> >> As far as I can tell we have a couple of options: >> >> - Redefine what the exit codes mean so that exit 0 suppresses >> auto-restart and exits silently. Probably simplest. > > I'm now strongly in favour of this alternative. > > I've just noticed that the bgworker control interfaces do not honour > bgw.bgw_restart_time = BGW_NEVER_RESTART if you exit with status zero. > > This means that it's not simply a problem where you can't say "restart > me if I crash, but not if I exit normally". > > You also can't even say "never restart me at all". Because > "BGW_NEVER_RESTART" seems to really mean "BGW_NO_RESTART_ON_CRASH". > > This _needs_fixing before 9.4.
It seems we have consensus on what to do about this, but what we haven't got is a patch. -- 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
