Re: [HACKERS] relaying errors from background workers

2014-05-25 Thread Amit Kapila
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Suppose a user backend starts a background worker for some purpose; the background worker dies with an error. The infrastructure we have today is sufficient for the user backend to discover that the worker backend has

Re: [HACKERS] relaying errors from background workers

2014-05-22 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 22/05/14 06:21, Robert Haas wrote: The main thing I'm not sure about is how to format the message that we write to the shm_mq. One option is to try to use the good old FEBE protocol. This doesn't look entirely straightforward, because send_message_to_frontend() assembles the message using

Re: [HACKERS] relaying errors from background workers

2014-05-22 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 22/05/14 06:21, Robert Haas wrote: The main thing I'm not sure about is how to format the message that we write to the shm_mq. One option is to try to use the good old FEBE protocol. This doesn't look entirely

[HACKERS] relaying errors from background workers

2014-05-21 Thread Robert Haas
Suppose a user backend starts a background worker for some purpose; the background worker dies with an error. The infrastructure we have today is sufficient for the user backend to discover that the worker backend has died, but not why. There might be an error in the server log, but the error