Re: Regarding BGworkers
| От | Michael Paquier |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Regarding BGworkers |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAB7nPqT6oOVwWCaRGamXkfp1=_=o3joQrRyNmU94dXTF3KivJg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Regarding BGworkers (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Regarding BGworkers
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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:Yes, perhaps so. Other votes?
> 2. Shouldn't function
> do_start_bgworker()/StartOneBackgroundWorker(void) be moved to bgworker.c
> as similar functions AutoVacWorkerMain()/PgArchiverMain() are in their respective files.
StartOneBackgroundWorker uses StartWorkerNeeded and HaveCrashedWorker, and IMO, we should not expose that outside the postmaster. 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.
Regards,
Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: