Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Denis Laxalde <denis(dot)laxalde(at)dalibo(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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: 2021-08-26 07:24:33
Message-ID: CAOBaU_Zh5K_kjCAX+OnwRMQ68SHSVSR5haF9R0Ud8hXk31Wk+Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 3:15 PM Denis Laxalde <denis(dot)laxalde(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier a écrit :
> >> @@ -5862,6 +5862,9 @@ do_start_bgworker(RegisteredBgWorker *rw)
> >> static bool
> >> bgworker_should_start_now(BgWorkerStartTime start_time)
> >> {
> >> + if (IsBinaryUpgrade)
> >> + return false;
> >> +
> > Using -c max_worker_processes=0 would just have the same effect, no?
> > So we could just patch pg_upgrade's server.c to get the same level of
> > protection?
>
> Yes, same effect indeed. This would log "too many background workers"
> messages in pg_upgrade logs, though.
> See attached patch implementing this suggestion.

I disagree. It can appear to have the same effect but it's not
guaranteed. Any module in shared_preload_libraries could stick a
"max_worker_processes +=X" if it thinks it should account for its own
ressources. That may not be something encouraged, but it's definitely
possible (and I think Andres recently mentioned that some extensions
do things like that, although maybe for other GUCs) and could result
in a corruption of a pg_upgrade'd cluster, so I still think that
changing bgworker_should_start_now() is a better option.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2021-08-26 07:34:25 cannot access to postgres-git via ssh
Previous Message Denis Smirnov 2021-08-26 07:21:04 Re: Async-unsafe functions in signal handlers