Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS
Date: 2021-08-02 15:00:49
Message-ID: 1635870.1627916449@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> If you're saying that this code has been 100% broken for 7 years and
> nobody's noticed until now, then that suggests that nobody actually
> uses non-shmem-connected bgworkers. I sort of hate to give up on that
> concept but if we've really gone that many years without anyone
> noticing obvious breakage then maybe we should.

Well, the problem only exists on Windows so maybe this indeed
escaped notice. Still, this is good evidence that the case isn't
used *much*, and TBH I don't see many applications for it.
I can't say I'm excited about putting effort into fixing it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Drouvot, Bertrand 2021-08-02 15:31:46 Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Previous Message Drouvot, Bertrand 2021-08-02 14:56:44 Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys