On 2013-08-28 14:04:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> + RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker(BackgroundWorker
> >> + *worker, BackgroundWorkerHandle **handle). Unlike
> >> + RegisterBackgroundWorker, which can only be called from
> >> within
> >> + the postmaster, RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Robert Haas 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 there really any po
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Robert Haas 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 point it's just in
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > BgwHandleStatus GetBackgroundWorkerPid(BackgroundWorkerHandle *handle,
>> > pid_t *pid);
>> > BgwHandleStatus WaitForBackgroundWorkerStartup(BackgroundWorkerHandle
>> > *handle, pid_t *pid);
>>
>> OK, here's a patch that API. I renamed
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_h
Hi Robert,
On 2013-08-17 12:08:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > So, I'd suggest something like:
> >
> > typedef enum BgwHandleStatus {
> >BGWH_SUCCESS, /* sucessfully got status */
> >BGWH_NOT_YET, /* worker hasn't started yet */
> >
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Andres Freund 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 already */
>BG
[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 wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Andres Freund
> > wrote:
> >> It doesn't need to be the postmaster, but I think
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Andres Freund 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 doesn't need to be imple
On 2013-07-25 12:35:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Andres Freund 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
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Andres Freund 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 with a dozen bgwork
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-07-25 08:03:17 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Andres Freund >wrote:
> >
> > > > --- a/contrib/worker_spi/worker_spi.c
> > > > +++ b/contrib/worker_spi/worker_spi.c
> > >
> > > Btw, I've posted a mi
On 2013-07-25 08:03:17 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > > --- 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.gd
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > --- 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 coverage
> of this..
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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
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
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 you'
17 matches
Mail list logo
