On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > [skipped...] > > Oh, hmm. So I guess if you do that when the background process is idle it's > the same as a close? > > I think we need some way to safeguard against accidental forkbombs for cases > where users aren't intending to leave something running in the background. > There's other reasons to use this besides spawning long running processes, > and I'd certainly want to be able to ensure the calling function wasn't > accidentally leaving things running that it didn't mean to. (Maybe the patch > already does this...) >
Current pg_background patch built to the top of BackgroundSession code take care of that; user need to call pg_background_close() to gracefully close previously forked background worker. Even though if user session who forked this worker exited without calling pg_background_close(), this background worked force to exit with following log: ERROR: could not read from message queue: Other process has detached queue LOG: could not send on message queue: Other process has detached queue LOG: worker process: background session by PID 61242 (PID 61358) exited with exit code 1 Does this make sense to you? Regards, Amul -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
