On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > The changes here make it impossible to write a bgworker which properly > works in 9.3 and 9.4. Was that intended? If so, the commit message > should mention the compatibility break...
Yeah, sorry, I probably should have mentioned that. The structure needs to be fixed size for us to store it in shared memory. > If it was intended I propose changing the signature for 9.3 as > well. There's just no point in releasing 9.3 when we already know which > trivial but breaking change will be required for 9.4 I think that would be a good idea. And I'd also propose getting rid of bgw_sighup and bgw_sigterm in both branches, while we're at it. AFAICT, they don't add any functionality, and they're basically unusable for dynamically started background workers. Probably better not to get people to used to using them. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
