| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Aya Iwata (Fujitsu)" <iwata(dot)aya(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Michael Paquier' <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE |
| Date: | 2025-10-07 02:00:18 |
| Message-ID: | OSCPR01MB14966CBEA1C4F5967ABEE6AEAF5E0A@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Iwata-san,
Thanks for updating the patch.
> I updated my patch using bgw_flags to set whether accept to terminate bgworker
> or not.
> And I also removed AcceptBackgroundWorkerCancel() function.
> Please check my attached patch.
```
+/*
+ * Cancel background workers.
+ */
+void
+CancelBackgroundWorkers(Oid databaseId, int cancel_flags)
```
Do we still need the cancel_flags? I cannot find other reasons to terminate
workers. Also the things I don't like is that BGWORKER_CANCEL_ADMIN_COMMANDS must
have the same value as BGWORKER_EXIT_AT_DATABASE_DROP. Only one flag exists but
it has 0x0004. Can we remove the argument and flags from the patch?
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2025-10-07 02:28:32 | Re: Add RESPECT/IGNORE NULLS and FROM FIRST/LAST options |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2025-10-07 01:54:33 | Re: Invalid pointer access in logical decoding after error |