Re: [HACKERS] background sessions

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very often strategy can be recheck of parent process  in some waiting
> cycles. It should not to impact performance.

I think that's going to be hard to arrange, and I think it isn't
necessary.  If the leader wants to arrange for the worker to die when
it exits, it can use TerminateBackgroundWorker() from a
PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP block or on_shmem_exit hook.

> I afraid so some waiting times in bg process can be high probable with this
> patch - and then is probable so somebody use pg_terminate_backend. This
> situation should not to finish by server restart.

I don't understand.  The only way you'd need a server restart is if a
background process wasn't responding to SIGTERM, and that's a bug
independent of anything this patch does.  It would be cause by the
background process not doing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() or the moral
equivalent regularly.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company