Hi,
On 2021-08-05 20:02:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > First, what do we want to do with BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS? I'm inclined to treat
> > it as a required flag going forward.
>
> +1
>
> > The second question is what we want to do in the backbranches. I think the
> > reasonable options are to do nothing, or to make !BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS an
> > error in SanityCheckBackgroundWorker() if EXEC_BACKEND is used.
>
> I think doing nothing is fine. Given the lack of complaints, we're
> more likely to break something than fix anything useful.
Done in the attached patch. I don't think we need to add more to the docs than
the flag being required?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
