| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Denis Laxalde <denis(dot)laxalde(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2021-08-27 19:28:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20210827192842.7wef2zr24zvuh3tx@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-08-27 09:34:24 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 7:31 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, there is some history here with autovacuum. I have not been
> > careful enough to check that. Still, putting a check on
> > IsBinaryUpgrade in bgworker_should_start_now() would mean that we
> > still keep track of the set of bgworkers registered in shared memory.
>
> That shouldn't lead to any problem right?
>
> > Wouldn't it be better to block things at the source, as of
> > RegisterBackgroundWorker()? And that would keep track of the control
> > we have on bgworkers in a single place. I also think that we'd better
> > document something about that either in bgworker.sgml or pg_upgrade's
> > page.
>
> I'm fine with that approach too.
Isn't that just going to end up with extension code erroring out and/or
blocking waiting for a bgworker to start?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-08-27 19:30:48 | Re: log_autovacuum in Postgres 14 -- ordering issue |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-08-27 19:27:18 | Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? |