RE: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE

Dear Peter, Iwata-san,

> 1a.
> It's not clear to me what you were trying to convey by saying "unless
> slot has been used" in the comment. Maybe you meant "unless slot is
> not in use", but is that useful even to say? Anyway, the comment as-is
> seems incorrect.

Agreed to update the comment. How about:
Iterate through slots, looking for workers who connects to the given database.

> 1b.
> Sorry for wavering on this, but now that I see the resulting v4 code,
> I feel we don't really need any of those 'continues', and more if
> conditions can be combined. It becomes simpler. See if you agree.

Ether way is fine for me.

> /*
>  * Terminate all background workers for this database, if
>  * they had requested it (BGWORKER_EXIT_AT_DATABASE_DROP).
>  */
> TerminateBackgroundWorkersForDB(databaseId);

The code comment looks OK. Regarding the function name, I want to propose
an alternative - TerminateBackgroundWorkersByOid().
Core codes have already had several xxxByOid() functions.

Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED