| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Denis Laxalde <denis(dot)laxalde(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2021-08-27 01:34:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_ZJ1_MAV-2Lv4wu6+PPVbo=O_sC8r9ck_dB_QbGXWs+Zg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 7:31 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> Indeed, there is some history here with autovacuum. I have not been
> careful enough to check that. Still, putting a check on
> IsBinaryUpgrade in bgworker_should_start_now() would mean that we
> still keep track of the set of bgworkers registered in shared memory.
That shouldn't lead to any problem right?
> Wouldn't it be better to block things at the source, as of
> RegisterBackgroundWorker()? And that would keep track of the control
> we have on bgworkers in a single place. I also think that we'd better
> document something about that either in bgworker.sgml or pg_upgrade's
> page.
I'm fine with that approach too.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-08-27 01:42:35 | Re: amcheck/verify_heapam doesn't check for interrupts |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-08-27 00:59:13 | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |