| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker |
| Date: | 2012-12-05 22:22:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20121205222254.GX27424@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2012-12-05 19:03:44 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Prefer
> > BgWorkerStart_ConsistentState to be renamed to BgWorkerRun_InHotStandby
> > BgWorkerStart_RecoveryFinished to be renamed to BgWorkerRun_InNormalMode
> >
> > presumably a process will shutdown if (BgWorkerRun_InHotStandby &&
> > !BgWorkerRun_InNormalMode)
>
> Hmm, no, I haven't considered that. You mean that a bgworker that
> specifies to start at BgWorkerStart_ConsistentState will stop once
> normal mode is reached? Currently they don't do that. And since we
> don't have the notion that workers stop working, it wouldn't work --
> postmaster would start them back up immediately.
I personally don't see too much demand for this from a use-case
perspective. Simon, did you have anything in mind that made you ask
this?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-05 22:23:08 | Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2 |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-12-05 22:21:16 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... NOREWRITE option |