Re: Support worker_spi to execute the function dynamically.

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Support worker_spi to execute the function dynamically.
Date: 2023-07-26 03:52:20
Message-ID: ZMCYdAPyriqGQZIL@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 09:02:54AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I've been sleeping on that a bit more, and I'd still go with the
> refactoring where we initialize one cluster and have all the tests
> done by TAP, for the sake of being much cheaper without changing the
> coverage, while being more extensible when it comes to introduce tests
> for the follow-up patch on custom wait events.

For now, please note that I have applied your idea to add "dynamic" to
the names of the bgworkers registered on a worker_spi_launch() as this
is useful on its own. I have given up on the "static" part, because
that felt unconsistent with the API names, and we don't use this term
in the docs for bgworkers, additionally.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2023-07-26 04:06:31 Re: odd buildfarm failure - "pg_ctl: control file appears to be corrupt"
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-07-26 03:29:17 Re: [PATCH] Add function to_oct