On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On 17 March 2015 at 19:12, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Amit Khandekar
>> wrote:
>> > I think we either have to retain the knowledge that the worker has
>> > crashed
>> > using some new field, or else, we should
On 17 March 2015 at 19:12, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Amit Khandekar
> wrote:
> > I think we either have to retain the knowledge that the worker has
> crashed
> > using some new field, or else, we should reset the crash time only if it
> is
> > not flagged BGW_NEVER_RE
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> When the postmaster recovers from a backend or worker crash, it resets bg
> worker's crash time (rw->rw_crashed_at) so that the bgworker will
> immediately restart (ResetBackgroundWorkerCrashTimes).
>
> But resetting rw->rw_crashed_at to 0 m
When the postmaster recovers from a backend or worker crash, it resets bg
worker's crash time (rw->rw_crashed_at) so that the bgworker will
immediately restart (ResetBackgroundWorkerCrashTimes).
But resetting rw->rw_crashed_at to 0 means that we have lost the
information that the bgworker had actu
