Re: bgworker crashed or not?

On 04/17/2014 04:47 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>
> Well the logging is just too spammy in general when it comes to dynamic
> bgworkers but that's easy to fix in the future, no need to make
> decisions for 9.4.

Agreed - it's the *API* that we need sorted out for 9.4, and log output
isn't something Pg tends to consider part of the API.

> However I really don't like that I have to exit with exit code 1, which
> is normally used as failure, if I want to shutdown my dynamic bgworker
> once it has finished the work. And this behavior is something we can set
> properly only once...

As far as I can tell we have a couple of options:

- Redefine what the exit codes mean so that exit 0 suppresses
auto-restart and exits silently. Probably simplest.

or

- Expose a worker's BackgroundWorkerHandle as a global within the
worker, and let it TerminateBackroundWorker(my_bgw_handle) its self.

Of those, just changing the meaning of the exit code seems simpler and
easier. It's not clear to me why it appears to be contentious.

I don't think the status quo, with no way to exit a dynamic bgworker w/o
an error, is OK. It's like those delightful "Error: Success" messages
one gets when using perror() inappropriately - deeply confusing to
users. Lets try not to be stuck with that when we can avoid it.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services