Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code

On 30/11/2023 20:44, Tristan Partin wrote:
> Patches 1-3 seem committable as-is.

Thanks for the review! I'm focusing on patches 1-3 now, and will come
back to the rest after committing 1-3.

There was one test failure with EXEC_BACKEND from patch 2, in
'test_shm_mq'. In restore_backend_variables() I checked if 'bgw_name' is
empty to decide if the BackgroundWorker struct is filled in or not, but
it turns out that 'test_shm_mq' doesn't fill in bgw_name. It probably
should, I think that's an oversight in 'test_shm_mq', but that's a
separate issue.

I did some more refactoring of patch 2, to fix that and to improve it in
general. The BackgroundWorker struct is now passed through the
fork-related functions similarly to the Port struct. That seems more
consistent.

Attached is new version of these patches. For easier review, I made the
new refactorings compared in a new commit 0003. I will squash that
before pushing, but this makes it easier to see what changed.

Barring any new feedback or issues, I will commit these.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)