| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow background workers to be started dynamically. |
| Date: | 2013-07-22 19:16:43 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobM-sKsEtfY+w0g0+k5kpT+Hqa0cHEwHRG0HLAoVCOeiQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't have a problem with getting rid of those, it's easy enough to
>> register them inside the worker and it's safe since we start with
>> blocked signals. I seem to remember some discussion about why they were
>> added but I can't find a reference anymore. Alvaro, do you remember?
>
> I left them there because it was easy; but they were absolutely
> necessary only until we decided that we would start the worker's main
> function with signals blocked. I don't think there's any serious reason
> not to remove them now.
All right, done. FWIW, I think starting the worker's main with
signals blocked was definitely the right decision.
I think we have consensus to back-patch the other API changes as well.
I'll work up a patch for that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-22 19:44:29 | pgsql: Back-patch bgworker API changes to 9.3. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-22 19:15:53 | pgsql: Remove bgw_sighup and bgw_sigterm. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-22 19:17:26 | Re: proposal - psql - show longest tables |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-07-22 19:13:11 | Re: proposal - psql - show longest tables |