Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS
Date
Msg-id 1635870.1627916449@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS
Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> If you're saying that this code has been 100% broken for 7 years and
> nobody's noticed until now, then that suggests that nobody actually
> uses non-shmem-connected bgworkers. I sort of hate to give up on that
> concept but if we've really gone that many years without anyone
> noticing obvious breakage then maybe we should.

Well, the problem only exists on Windows so maybe this indeed
escaped notice.  Still, this is good evidence that the case isn't
used *much*, and TBH I don't see many applications for it.
I can't say I'm excited about putting effort into fixing it.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand"
Date:
Subject: Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Next
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand"
Date:
Subject: Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys