Re: bgworker crashed or not?
От | Craig Ringer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: bgworker crashed or not? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5358A38F.50808@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: bgworker crashed or not? (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: bgworker crashed or not?
Re: bgworker crashed or not? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/17/2014 08:35 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 04/17/2014 04:47 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> >> Well the logging is just too spammy in general when it comes to dynamic >> bgworkers but that's easy to fix in the future, no need to make >> decisions for 9.4. > > Agreed - it's the *API* that we need sorted out for 9.4, and log output > isn't something Pg tends to consider part of the API. > >> However I really don't like that I have to exit with exit code 1, which >> is normally used as failure, if I want to shutdown my dynamic bgworker >> once it has finished the work. And this behavior is something we can set >> properly only once... > > As far as I can tell we have a couple of options: > > - Redefine what the exit codes mean so that exit 0 suppresses > auto-restart and exits silently. Probably simplest. I'm now strongly in favour of this alternative. I've just noticed that the bgworker control interfaces do not honour bgw.bgw_restart_time = BGW_NEVER_RESTART if you exit with status zero. This means that it's not simply a problem where you can't say "restart me if I crash, but not if I exit normally". You also can't even say "never restart me at all". Because "BGW_NEVER_RESTART" seems to really mean "BGW_NO_RESTART_ON_CRASH". This _needs_fixing before 9.4. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: