Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Guillaume Lelarge
Subject Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP
Date
Msg-id 1356710001.1993.16.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Behaviour of bgworker with SIGHUP
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

Today, I tried to make fun with the new background worker processes in
9.3, but I found something disturbing, and need help to go further.

My code is available on https://github.com/gleu/stats_recorder. If you
take a look, it is basically a copy of Alvarro's worker_spi contrib
module with a few changes. It compiles, and installs OK.

With this code, when I change my config option (stats_recorder.naptime),
I see that PostgreSQL gets the new value, but my background worker
process doesn't. See these log lines:

LOG:  stats recorder, worker_spi_main loop, stats_recorder_naptime is 1
LOG:  stats recorder, worker_spi_main loop, stats_recorder_naptime is 1
LOG:  received SIGHUP, reloading configuration files
LOG:  parameter "stats_recorder.naptime" changed to "5"
LOG:  stats recorder, worker_spi_sighup
LOG:  stats recorder, worker_spi_main loop, stats_recorder_naptime is 1
LOG:  stats recorder, worker_spi_main loop, stats_recorder_naptime is 1

Is it the work of the function (pointed by bgw_sighup) to get the new
config values from the postmaster? and if so, how can I get these new
values?

I thought the configuration reloading would work just like a shared
library but it doesn't seem so. I wondered if it was because I had the
sighup function (initialized with bgw_sighup), so I got rid of it. The
new behaviour was actually more surprising as it launched _PG_init each
time I did a "pg_ctl reload".

LOG:  stats recorder, worker_spi_main loop, stats_recorder_naptime is 1
LOG:  stats recorder, worker_spi_main loop, stats_recorder_naptime is 1
LOG:  received SIGHUP, reloading configuration files
LOG:  stats_recorder, _PG_init
FATAL:  cannot create PGC_POSTMASTER variables after startup
LOG:  worker process: stats recorder (PID 5435) exited with exit code 1

Is it the expected behaviour?

Thanks.

Regards.


-- 
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: multiple CREATE FUNCTION AS items for PLs
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: enhanced error fields