On 2013-12-13 12:54:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > I wonder what to do about bgworker's bgworker_die()? I don't really see > > how that can be fixed without breaking the API? > > IMO it should be flushed and bgworkers should use the same die() handler > as every other backend, or else one like the one in worker_spi, which just > sets a flag for testing later.
Agreed on not going forward like now, but I don't really see how they could usefully use die(). I think we should just mandate that every bgworker conneced to shared memory registers a sigterm handler - we could put a check into BackgroundWorkerUnblockSignals(). We should leave the current handler in for unconnected one though... bgworkers are supposed to be written as a loop around procLatch, so adding a !got_sigterm, probably isn't too hard. It sucks that people might have bgworkers out there that don't register their own sigterm handlers, but adding a sigterm handler will be backward compatible and it's in the example bgworker, so it's probably not too bad. > If we try to change the signal handling > contracts, 80% of backend code will be unusable in bgworkers, which is not > where we want to be I think. Yea, I think that's out of the question. 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
