Re: Regarding BGworkers

On Friday, August 02, 2013 4:19 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com> wrote:
>>> 2. Shouldn't function
>>> do_start_bgworker()/StartOneBackgroundWorker(void) be moved to
bgworker.c
>>>    as similar functions AutoVacWorkerMain()/PgArchiverMain() are in
their respective files.

>> Yes, perhaps so.  Other votes?

> StartOneBackgroundWorker uses StartWorkerNeeded and HaveCrashedWorker, and
IMO, we should not expose that outside the postmaster.   How about exposing Set/Get for these from bgworker?

> On the contrary,
> moving do_start_bgworker would be fine, as it uses nothing exclusive to
the postmaster as far as I saw, and it would also make it more consistent
with > the other features.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.