On 2013-04-23 14:11:26 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2013-04-23 11:59:43 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Andres Freund wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I noticed the need to simply stop a bgworker after its work is done but > > > > still have it restart in unusual circumstances like a crash. > > > > Obviously I can just have it enter a loop where it checks its latch and > > > > such, but that seems a bit pointless. > > > > > > > > Would it make sense to add an extra return value or such for that? > > > > > > KaiGai also requested some more flexibility in the stop timing and > > > shutdown sequence. I understand the current design that workers are > > > always on can be a bit annoying. > > > > > > How would postmaster know when to restart a worker that stopped? > > > > I had imagined we would assign some return codes special > > meaning. Currently 0 basically means "restart immediately", 1 means > > "crashed, wait for some time", everything else results in a postmaster > > restart. It seems we can just assign returncode 2 as "done", probably > > with some enum or such hiding the numbers. > > So a "done" worker would never be restarted, until postmaster sees a > crash or is itself restarted? I guess that'd be useful for workers > running during recovery, which terminate when recovery completes. Is > that your use case?
Well, its not actual postgres recovery, but something similar in the context of logical replication. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
