[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] bgworker crashed or not?
From:       Robert Haas <robertmhaas () gmail ! com>
Date:       2014-04-30 21:35:24
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob4Ur9b4opDJXVBpDSNSGpp5V-zG2V4Vt7RdTLT-ZAuLQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 28/04/14 16:27, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 04/17/2014 08:35 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> I've just noticed that the bgworker control interfaces do not honour
>>> bgw.bgw_restart_time = BGW_NEVER_RESTART if you exit with status zero.
>>>
>>> This means that it's not simply a problem where you can't say "restart
>>> me if I crash, but not if I exit normally".
>>>
>>> You also can't even say "never restart me at all". Because
>>> "BGW_NEVER_RESTART" seems to really mean "BGW_NO_RESTART_ON_CRASH".
>>>
>>> This _needs_fixing before 9.4.
>>
>>
>> It seems we have consensus on what to do about this, but what we
>> haven't got is a patch.
>
> If you mean the consensus that exit status 0 should mean permanent stop then
> I think the patch can be as simple as attached.

Hmm.  Well, at the very least, you need to update the comment.

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


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]