Re: Wake up autovacuum launcher from postmaster when a worker exits

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Wake up autovacuum launcher from postmaster when a worker exits
Date: 2026-01-08 23:01:54
Message-ID: CAD21AoDGYt09cW7D=_zx2b0orcE9uF7YRxrin1Vtmgb99xEMeA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 11:57 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>
> When an autovacuum worker exits, ProcKill() sends SIGUSR2 to the
> launcher. I propose moving that responsibility to the postmaster, because:
>
> * It's simpler IMHO
>
> * The postmaster is already responsible for sending the signal if fork()
> fails
>
> * It makes it consistent with background workers. When a background
> worker exits, the postmaster sends the signal to the launching process
> (if requested).
>
> * Postmaster doesn't need to worry about sending the signal to the wrong
> process if the launcher's PID is reused, because it always has
> up-to-date PID information, because the launcher is postmaster's child
> process. That risk was negligible to begin with, but this eliminates
> completely, so we don't need the comment excusing it it anymore.

It sounds reasonable to me too. +1.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2026-01-08 23:29:38 Re: pg_plan_advice
Previous Message Haibo Yan 2026-01-08 22:52:29 Re: pg_plan_advice