Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS

Hi,

On 2021-08-02 11:00:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Right. I did briefly look around and I didn't find bgworkers without
shmem attachement...

> 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.

Yea, I don't think it adds that much - without e.g. sharing a file
descriptor with the unconnected bgworker one can't implement something
like syslogger.

Greetings,

Andres Freund