| 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 05:49:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_b5rFUz=7ikwfONMsdq7LHh37JFQSriWHvtUx9SjGUmLg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 12:41 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> Perhaps. That feels like a topic different than what's discussed
> here, though, because we don't really need to check if a bgworker has
> been launched or not. We just need to make sure that it never runs in
> the context of a binary upgrade, like autovacuum.
I'm a bit confused. Did you mean checking if a bgworker has been
*registered* or not?
But my point was that preventing a bgworker registration as a way to
avoid it from being launched may lead to some problem if an extensions
decides that a failure in the registration is problematic enough to
prevent the startup altogether for instance. I'm ok if we decide that
it's *not* an acceptable behavior, but it should be clear that it's
the case, and probably documented.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-08-27 06:02:27 | Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-08-27 05:38:43 | Re: create table like: ACCESS METHOD |