Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS
Date: 2021-08-09 15:07:14
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob9o+C===JQBTtGfL+GbFHR3O_a-E=tQLdY-eyUkyizQw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 8:02 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think doing nothing is fine. Given the lack of complaints, we're
> more likely to break something than fix anything useful.

+1.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nitin Jadhav 2021-08-09 15:20:59 Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-08-09 14:35:39 Re: Parallel scan with SubTransGetTopmostTransaction assert coredump