Re: bgworker / SPI docs patches

On 07/29/2015 09:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> +   <warning>
> +    <para>
> +     Use of this field is deprecated. It should be set to
> +     <literal>NULL</literal> then <structfield>bgw_library_name</structfield>
> +     and <structfield>bgw_function_name</structfield> should be used instead.
> +    </para>
>
> I don't think bgw_main is exactly deprecated.  It's fine to use it if
> the function is in the core code; it just can't be safely used for
> functions in dynamically loaded shared libraries.  Maybe that's close
> enough to "deprecated" that we should just call it deprecated, but I'm
> slightly reluctant to use that word.

Hmm. worker_spi module uses bgw_main. Is that bad? Given that work_spi
is supposedly an example or template that you copy-paste from when
writing your own bgworker, we should make sure it follows the best
practice. Also, I note that worker_spi doesn't memset(0) its
BackgroundWorker struct, so any uninitialized fields will contain
garbage. Including bgw_library_name and bgw_function_name. That seems bad.

> I've committed some bits of this that seem useful and controversial
> with rather extensive wordsmithing; let me know if it doesn't look
> good.

I've marked this as committed in the commitfest. If we're waiting for a
followup patch for the remaining bits, please change it back to Waiting
on Author, or post the followup patch to the next commitfest if it can't
be done quickly.

- Heikki