Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code

On Fri Dec 1, 2023 at 6:10 AM CST, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 30/11/2023 20:44, Tristan Partin wrote:
> > Patches 1-3 seem committable as-is.
>
> Thanks for the review! I'm focusing on patches 1-3 now, and will come
> back to the rest after committing 1-3.
>
> There was one test failure with EXEC_BACKEND from patch 2, in
> 'test_shm_mq'. In restore_backend_variables() I checked if 'bgw_name' is
> empty to decide if the BackgroundWorker struct is filled in or not, but
> it turns out that 'test_shm_mq' doesn't fill in bgw_name. It probably
> should, I think that's an oversight in 'test_shm_mq', but that's a
> separate issue.
>
> I did some more refactoring of patch 2, to fix that and to improve it in
> general. The BackgroundWorker struct is now passed through the
> fork-related functions similarly to the Port struct. That seems more
> consistent.
>
> Attached is new version of these patches. For easier review, I made the
> new refactorings compared in a new commit 0003. I will squash that
> before pushing, but this makes it easier to see what changed.
>
> Barring any new feedback or issues, I will commit these.

My only thought is that perhaps has_bg_worker is a better name than
has_worker, but I agree that having a flag is better than checking
bgw_name.

--
Tristan Partin
Neon (https://neon.tech)