Re: BGWORKER_INTERRUPTIBLE workers are never restarted after DROP/ALTER/CREATE DATABASE

From: Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BGWORKER_INTERRUPTIBLE workers are never restarted after DROP/ALTER/CREATE DATABASE
Date: 2026-11-10 09:25:47
Message-ID: CABPTF7Wus0OyELSyXee=jrHEQSY7MRe1ESHp3Fr4m5JYhtWEEQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 10, 2026 at 1:42 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2026 at 06:49:41PM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> > There seems to be a risk of interpreting the exit of worker & its PID
> > reuse as non-exit failure here. How about adding a new critera like
> > process start time for checking that as V4 does.
>
> I'm finding this addition utterly esoteric, because this would be hit
> yes, but the risk is dramatically low compared to making the test more
> complex to parse. v3 as sent by Zsolt is just but fine to me.

WFM.

--
Regards,
Xuneng Zhou
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2026-11-10 09:50:02 Re: Update comments in functions for statistics import in postgres_fdw.c
Previous Message Zhijie Hou 2026-11-10 09:17:57 Re: Assertion failure in update_local_synced_slot(), slotsync.c:364