Re: [HACKERS] Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags

2015-09-09 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > >> Thanks. It needs testing though to see if it really works as > >> intended. Can you look into that? > > > > PFA the patch

Re: [HACKERS] Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags

2015-09-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > PFA patch with improved test module and fix for a bug. > > bgworker_sigusr1_handler() should set the latch when set_latch_on_sigusr1 is > true, similar to procsignal_sigusr1_handler(). Without this fix, if a

Re: [HACKERS] Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags

2015-09-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> Thanks. It needs testing though to see if it really works as >> intended. Can you look into that? > > PFA the patch containing your code changes + test module. See if that meets > your expectations.

Re: [HACKERS] Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags

2015-08-31 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > This idea looks good. > > Thanks. It needs testing though to see if it really works as > intended. Can you look into that? >

Re: [HACKERS] Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags

2015-08-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Ashutosh Bapat ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote: This idea looks good. Thanks. It needs testing though to see if it really works as intended. Can you look into that? Looking at larger picture, we should also enable this feature to be used by auxilliary

Re: [HACKERS] Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags

2015-08-05 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Ashutosh Bapat ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote: With that notion of backend, to fix the original problem I reported, PostmasterMarkPIDForWorkerNotify() should also look at the

Re: [HACKERS] Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags

2015-08-05 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Ashutosh Bapat wrote: Looking at larger picture, we should also enable this feature to be used by auxilliary processes. It's very hard to add a new auxilliary process in current code. One has to go add code at many places to make sure that the auxilliary processes die and are re-started

Re: [HACKERS] Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags

2015-08-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Ashutosh Bapat ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote: With that notion of backend, to fix the original problem I reported, PostmasterMarkPIDForWorkerNotify() should also look at the BackgroundWorkerList. As per the comments in the prologue of this function, it

Re: [HACKERS] Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags

2015-07-07 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
In CleanupBackgroundWorker(), we seem to differentiate between a background worker with shared memory access and a backend. 2914 /* 2915 * Additionally, for shared-memory-connected workers, just like a 2916 * backend, any exit status other than 0 or 1 is considered a

Re: [HACKERS] Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags

2015-06-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Ashutosh Bapat ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com wrote: Documentation here http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/bgworker.html does not indicate any relation between the fields bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags of BackgroundWorker structure. But in one has to set

[HACKERS] Dependency between bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags

2015-06-04 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
Hi, Documentation here http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/bgworker.html does not indicate any relation between the fields bgw_notify_pid and bgw_flags of BackgroundWorker structure. But in one has to set BGWORKER_BACKEND_DATABASE_CONNECTION in order to use bgw_notify_pid feature. In