| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(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 22:30:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+1TreKRirScCZgEjYG4jw0VFxboN-c16KAxLFMbo9xKA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5 December 2012 22:22, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
Just clarifying how it worked, for the docs; happy with the way it is.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-05 22:31:20 | Re: Dumping an Extension's Script |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-12-05 22:28:45 | Re: Dumping an Extension's Script |