Greetings, * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 09:39:58PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Having discussed this quite a bit lately with David Steele and Magnus, > > it's pretty clear that we need to completely rip out how this works > > today and rewrite it based around an extension model where a background > > worker can start up and essentially take the place of the archiver > > process, with flexibility to jump forward through the WAL stream, > > communicate clearly with other processes, handle failure to do so > > gracefully based on the specific cases, etc. > > Hm. When an instance state is in PM_SHUTDOWN_2, the postmaster > explicitely waits for the WAL senders and the archiver to shut down. So > I think that you would need more control regarding the timing a bgworker > should be shut down first to be completely correct.
Yes, it couldn't be exactly the same as a generic background worker, that's a good point. We definitely need to make sure that the postmaster waits for the archiver to shut down, as it does for the WAL senders. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
