On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
BgwHandleStatus GetBackgroundWorkerPid(BackgroundWorkerHandle *handle,
pid_t *pid);
BgwHandleStatus WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup(BackgroundWorkerHandle
*handle, pid_t *pid);
OK, here's a patch that API. I
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I certainly can't promise that the code is bug-free. But I think it's
probably better to get this into the tree and let people start playing
around with it than to continue to maintain it in my private sandbox.
At this
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. Not this patches fault, but We seem to allow bgw_start_time ==
BgWorkerStart_PostmasterStart here which doesn't make sense...
I can add a check for that. I agree that it's a separate patch.
On third thought, is
On 2013-08-28 14:04:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
+ functionRegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker(typeBackgroundWorker
+ *worker, BackgroundWorkerHandle **handle/type)/function. Unlike
+ functionRegisterBackgroundWorker/, which can only be called from
within
+ the postmaster,
Hi Robert,
On 2013-08-17 12:08:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
So, I'd suggest something like:
typedef enum BgwHandleStatus {
BGWH_SUCCESS, /* sucessfully got status */
BGWH_NOT_YET, /* worker hasn't started
On 2013-07-26 08:50:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Btw, you seem to want to support this in bgworkers started by a
bgworker. That's not going to work without some changes if the
intermediate bgworker is one without a backend since those don't use
procsignal_sigusr1_handler.
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
So, I'd suggest something like:
typedef enum BgwHandleStatus {
BGWH_SUCCESS, /* sucessfully got status */
BGWH_NOT_YET, /* worker hasn't started yet */
BGWH_GONE, /* worker had been started, but shut down
[sent again, previously sent as reply, instead of reply-all, thanks
Robert]
On 2013-08-09 09:09:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
It doesn't
On 2013-07-25 12:35:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
This seems like a sensible idea to me. But, in the context of dynamic
query, don't we also need the reverse infrastructure of notifying a
bgworker that the client,
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
It doesn't need to be the postmaster, but I think we need to provide
central infrastructure for that. I don't want this to end up being
redone poorly in multiple places.
I just wanted to mention it, it obviously
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
This seems like a sensible idea to me. But, in the context of dynamic
query, don't we also need the reverse infrastructure of notifying a
bgworker that the client, that requested it to be started, has died?
Ending up
The dynamic background workers patch that I submitted for CF1 was
generally well-received, but several people commented on a significant
limitation: there's currently no way for a backend that requests a new
background worker to know whether that background worker was
successfully started. If
Hi,
On 2013-07-24 12:46:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
The attached patch attempts to remedy this problem. When you register
a background worker, you can obtain a handle that can subsequently
be used to query for the worker's PID. If you additionally initialize
bgw_notify_pid = MyProcPid,
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
Hi,
On 2013-07-24 12:46:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
The attached patch attempts to remedy this problem. When you register
a background worker, you can obtain a handle that can subsequently
be used to query for
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
--- a/contrib/worker_spi/worker_spi.c
+++ b/contrib/worker_spi/worker_spi.c
Btw, I've posted a minimal regression test for bworkers/worker_spi in
20130724175742.gd10...@alap2.anarazel.de - I'd like to see some
On 2013-07-25 08:03:17 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
--- a/contrib/worker_spi/worker_spi.c
+++ b/contrib/worker_spi/worker_spi.c
Btw, I've posted a minimal regression test for bworkers/worker_spi in
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2013-07-25 08:03:17 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
--- a/contrib/worker_spi/worker_spi.c
+++ b/contrib/worker_spi/worker_spi.c
17 matches
Mail list logo
