On 2013-07-26 08:50:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > Btw, you seem to want to support this in bgworkers started by a > > > > bgworker. That's not going to work without some changes if the > > > > "intermediate" bgworker is one without a backend since those don't use > > > > procsignal_sigusr1_handler.
> > > Right. I think it's OK for now to limit it to cases where the > > > intermediate bgworker has a backend. If someone else finds that > > > restriction unacceptable, they can fix it. > > I don't have a problem with the restriction, but I'd like to see a check > > against it. Maybe check for MyBackendId != InvalidBackendId in > > RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker()? That would also prevent starting > > further bgworkers before BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection() is done > > in a connected bgworker which seems to be a good thing. > > Well, that's easy enough to fix. Should we Assert() or elog() or > what? I think that's not in the patch yet either. 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