| From: | Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: background sessions |
| Date: | 2017-01-04 09:27:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAJEAwVEN0sHUVR2e06=L9gyaJ0JNhs5rLeW6T2m-vUjT+g1TMg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2017-01-04 10:23 GMT+05:00 amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> One more query, can we modify
> BackgroundSessionStart()/BackgroundSession struct to get background
> worker PID as well?
I think since session always has a PID it's absoultley reasonable to return PID.
> I can understand this requirement could be sound useless for now,
> because it only for the benefit of pg_background contrib module only.
As far as i can unserstand BackgroundSession is not just a feature
itself, it's the API. So PID would benefit to pg_background and all
API use cases we didn't implement yet. I do not think that one PID in
structure will waste huge amount of memory, cycles, dev time,
readbility of docs, clearness of API etc. AFAIK the only reason may be
if the PID is not always there.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-01-04 09:31:53 | Re: proposal: session server side variables |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-01-04 08:56:41 | Re: proposal: session server side variables |