Hi Thank you for your review.
> From: Pavel Stehule <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2025 4:40 PM > To: Michael Paquier <[email protected]> > Cc: Iwata, Aya/岩田 彩 <[email protected]>; Peter Smith > <[email protected]>; Chao Li <[email protected]>; Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 > 隼人 <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP > DATABASE > > +#define BGWORKER_EXIT_AT_DATABASE_CHANGE 0x0004 > > I am checking this patch, and I think so used names can be little bit > confusing > > BGWORKER_EXIT_AT_DATABASE_CHANGE - it is used for disconnecting workers on > the template database, and this database is not changing. > > TerminateBgWorkersByDbOid - it doesn't terminate all workers, but only > workers with some special flags > > Maybe BGWORKER_INTERRUPTABLE and TerminateInterruptableBgWorkersByDbOid ? Thank you for your advice. I changed the name of a function and a flag. > Another question is if this cancellation should be implicit and should not > require some special flag. > > When I want to disconnect connections to database when I do drop, I have to > use FORCE flag > > So maybe there should be ALTER DATABASE ... RENAME ... FORCE - or if FORCE > can terminare all workers (without special FLAG) ? For the proposed feature, we've added a flag allowing each extension developer to decide whether to terminate it via DROP/ALTER DATABASE. Adding a FORCE option to ALTER to let database definition modifiers decide whether to force termination of background workers might be better discussed in a separate thread. Best Regards, Aya Iwata
v0010-0001-Allow-background-workers-to-be-terminated.patch
Description: v0010-0001-Allow-background-workers-to-be-terminated.patch
