Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
>
[skipped...]
>
> Oh, hmm. So I guess if you do that when the background process is idle it's
> the same as a close?
>
> I think we need some way to safeguard against accidental forkbombs for cases
> where users aren't intending to leave something running in the background.
> There's other reasons to use this besides spawning long running processes,
> and I'd certainly want to be able to ensure the calling function wasn't
> accidentally leaving things running that it didn't mean to. (Maybe the patch
> already does this...)
>

Current pg_background patch built to the top of BackgroundSession code
take care of that;
user need to call pg_background_close() to gracefully close previously
forked background
worker.  Even though if user session who forked this worker exited
without calling
pg_background_close(), this background worked force to exit with following log:

ERROR:  could not read from message queue: Other process has detached queue
LOG:  could not send on message queue: Other process has detached queue
LOG:  worker process: background session by PID 61242 (PID 61358)
exited with exit code 1

Does this make sense to you?


Regards,
Amul