Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> First, what do we want to do with BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS? I'm inclined to treat
> it as a required flag going forward.
+1
> The second question is what we want to do in the backbranches. I think the
> reasonable options are to do nothing, or to make !BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS an
> error in SanityCheckBackgroundWorker() if EXEC_BACKEND is used.
I think doing nothing is fine. Given the lack of complaints, we're
more likely to break something than fix anything useful.
regards, tom lane
