|From:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
* Stephen Frost (sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost (sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net) wrote:
> > * Michael Paquier (michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:07:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > > >> Thanks for that. Attached is just a rebased version with a commit
> > > >> message added. If there aren't any other concerns, I'll commit this in
> > > >> the next few days and back-patch it. When it comes to 12 and older,
> > > >> does anyone want to opine about the wait event to use? I was thinking
> > > >> PG_WAIT_TIMEOUT or WAIT_EVENT_PG_SLEEP ...
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure if we should back-patch this, but I think if you do you
> > > > should just add a wait event, rather than using a generic one.
> > >
> > > I would not back-patch that either, as this is an improvement of the
> > > current state. I agree that this had better introduce a new wait
> > > event. Even if this stuff gets backpatched, you won't introduce an
> > > ABI incompatibility with a new event as long as you add the new event
> > > at the end of the existing enum lists, but let's keep the wait events
> > > ordered on HEAD.
> > Adding CFI's in places that really should have them is something we
> > certainly have back-patched in the past, and that's just 'an improvement
> > of the current state' too, so I don't quite follow the argument being
> > made here that this shouldn't be back-patched.
> > I don't have any problem with adding into the older releases, at the end
> > of the existing lists, the same wait event that exists in 13+ for this
> > already.
> > Any other thoughts on this, particularly about back-patching or not..?
> We seem to be at a bit of an impasse on this regarding back-patching,
> which seems unfortunate to me, but without someone else commenting it
> seems like it's stalled.
> I'll go ahead and push the change to HEAD soon, as there doesn't seem to
> be any contention regarding that.
|Next Message||Erik Rijkers||2021-03-30 16:56:58||Re: SQL/JSON: JSON_TABLE|
|Previous Message||John Naylor||2021-03-30 16:50:28||Re: truncating timestamps on arbitrary intervals|