Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow background workers to be started dynamically.
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I don't have a problem with getting rid of those, it's easy enough to register them inside the worker and it's safe since we start with blocked signals. I seem to remember some discussion about why they were added but I can't find a reference anymore. Alvaro, do you remember? I left them there because it was easy; but they were absolutely necessary only until we decided that we would start the worker's main function with signals blocked. I don't think there's any serious reason not to remove them now. All right, done. FWIW, I think starting the worker's main with signals blocked was definitely the right decision. I think we have consensus to back-patch the other API changes as well. I'll work up a patch for that. -- 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
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow background workers to be started dynamically.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: I think we have consensus to back-patch the other API changes as well. I'll work up a patch for that. Pushed that as well. -- 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
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow background workers to be started dynamically.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: The changes here make it impossible to write a bgworker which properly works in 9.3 and 9.4. Was that intended? If so, the commit message should mention the compatibility break... Yeah, sorry, I probably should have mentioned that. The structure needs to be fixed size for us to store it in shared memory. If it was intended I propose changing the signature for 9.3 as well. There's just no point in releasing 9.3 when we already know which trivial but breaking change will be required for 9.4 I think that would be a good idea. And I'd also propose getting rid of bgw_sighup and bgw_sigterm in both branches, while we're at it. AFAICT, they don't add any functionality, and they're basically unusable for dynamically started background workers. Probably better not to get people to used to using them. -- 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
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow background workers to be started dynamically.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: The changes here make it impossible to write a bgworker which properly works in 9.3 and 9.4. Was that intended? If so, the commit message should mention the compatibility break... Yeah, sorry, I probably should have mentioned that. The structure needs to be fixed size for us to store it in shared memory. If it was intended I propose changing the signature for 9.3 as well. There's just no point in releasing 9.3 when we already know which trivial but breaking change will be required for 9.4 I think that would be a good idea. And I'd also propose getting rid of bgw_sighup and bgw_sigterm in both branches, while we're at it. AFAICT, they don't add any functionality, and they're basically unusable for dynamically started background workers. Probably better not to get people to used to using them. +1. Much better to take that pain now, before we have made a production release. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
