| From: | "Ryo Matsumura (Fujitsu)" <matsumura(dot)ryo(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Aya Iwata (Fujitsu)" <iwata(dot)aya(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Pavel Stehule' <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE |
| Date: | 2025-12-26 10:17:27 |
| Message-ID: | TYCPR01MB1131647E781856780072FBAE9E8B0A@TYCPR01MB11316.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Pavel-san, Iwata-san,
+1 to Allow-background-workers-to-be-terminated
The result is same, so I think it's better to prioritize compatibility.
PGWORKER_PROTECTED would be used in scenarios like the following:
Existing features are probably not designed to be forcibly stopped.
Therefore, all existing features should have PROTECTED applied to them.
Most newly implemented features will also have PROTECTED applied because it requires less thought and is safer.
Only considerate developers of features that can easily guarantee safety would adopt the default.
In conclusion, this is no different from BGWORKER_INTERRUPTABLE.
Therefore, I think it's better to prioritize compatibility.
Best Regards
Ryo Matsumura
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2025-12-26 10:19:06 | Re: 17f446784d54da827f74c2acc0fa772a41b92354 breaks orafce build |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2025-12-26 09:57:22 | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |