Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1635870.1627916449@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS
Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > If you're saying that this code has been 100% broken for 7 years and > nobody's noticed until now, then that suggests that nobody actually > uses non-shmem-connected bgworkers. I sort of hate to give up on that > concept but if we've really gone that many years without anyone > noticing obvious breakage then maybe we should. Well, the problem only exists on Windows so maybe this indeed escaped notice. Still, this is good evidence that the case isn't used *much*, and TBH I don't see many applications for it. I can't say I'm excited about putting effort into fixing it. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: