| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Regarding BGworkers |
| Date: | 2013-08-13 11:30:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYJVdSXkLfNxW0nb3_eEwL0Y9EpQfgkpgoP5kWyMTKbyg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> That seems more mess than just keeping that function in postmaster.c.
>> I agree with moving the other one.
> Please find attached a patch for that can be applied on master branch.
> do_start_bgworker is renamed to StartBackgroundWorker and moved to
> bgworker.c. At the same time, bgworker_quickdie, bgworker_die and
> bgworker_sigusr1_handler are moved to bgworker.c as they are used in
> do_start_bgworker.
This particular formulation doesn't seem quite good to me, because
we'd end up with a function called StartBackgroundWorker() and another
called StartOneBackgroundWorker() doing related but different things.
Maybe we can name things a bit better?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-08-13 11:31:53 | Re: timeline signedness |
| Previous Message | Tomonari Katsumata | 2013-08-13 10:37:34 | Re: How to create read-only view on 9.3 |