Re: [HACKERS] error handling in RegisterBackgroundWorker

On 2/15/17 12:11, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> If RegisterBackgroundWorker() (the non-dynamic kind that is only
>> loadable from shared_preload_libraries) fails to register the worker, it
>> writes a log message and proceeds, ignoring the registration request.  I
>> think that is a mistake, it should be a hard error.  The only way in
>> practice to fix the problem is to change shared_preload_libraries or
>> max_worker_processes, both requiring a restart anyway, so proceeding
>> without the worker is not useful.
> 
> I guess the question is whether people will prefer to have the
> database start up and be missing the worker, or to have it not start.
> As you point out, the former is likely to result in an eventual
> restart, but the latter may lead to a longer period of downtime RIGHT
> NOW.  People tend to really hate things that make the database not
> start, so I'm not sure what's best here.

Any other thoughts on this?  Seems like a potential usability issue.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services