Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example

From: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example
Date: 2023-06-14 11:08:03
Message-ID: CAJ7c6TMxBSTiqw5hpqARMdpjwSr712OvDNE=sXnY0sqLFLxJwQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Nathan,

> > That being said, I still don't understand why you focus on this tiny and not
> > really important detail while the module itself is actually broken (for dynamic
> > bgworker without s_p_l) and also has some broken behaviors with regards to the
> > naptime that are way more likely to hurt third party code that was written
> > using this module as an example.
>
> Are you or Aleksander interested in helping improve this module? I'm happy
> to help review and/or write patches.

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the problem in respect of naptime
Julien is referring to. If you know what this problem is and how to
fix it, go for it. I'll review and test the code then. I can write the
part of the patch that fixes the part regarding dynamic workers if
necessary.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ranier Vilela 2023-06-14 12:11:51 Re: Avoid unncessary always true test (src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c)
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2023-06-14 11:02:30 Re: Setting restrictedtoken in pg_regress