Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c oblivion of worker-startup failures

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Okay, see the attached and let me know if that suffices the need?
>
> + * Check for unexpected worker death. This will ensure that if
> + * the postmaster failed to start the worker, then we don't wait
> + * for it indefinitely. For workers that are known to be
> + * launched, we can rely on their error queue being freed once
> + * they exit.
>
> Hmm. Is this really true? What if the worker starts up but then
> crashes before attaching to the error queue?
>

If the worker errored out before attaching to the error queue, then we
can't rely on error queue being freed. However, in that case, the
worker status will be BGWH_STOPPED. I have adjusted the comment
accordingly.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com