Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS
Date: 2021-08-06 00:02:02
Message-ID: 2441730.1628208122@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> First, what do we want to do with BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS? I'm inclined to treat
> it as a required flag going forward.

+1

> The second question is what we want to do in the backbranches. I think the
> reasonable options are to do nothing, or to make !BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS an
> error in SanityCheckBackgroundWorker() if EXEC_BACKEND is used.

I think doing nothing is fine. Given the lack of complaints, we're
more likely to break something than fix anything useful.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-08-06 00:13:03 Re: Assert triggered during RE_compile_and_cache
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2021-08-05 23:38:28 Re: [BUG] wrong refresh when ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ADD/DROP PUBLICATION