Re: bgworker crashed or not? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: bgworker crashed or not?
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmob4Ur9b4opDJXVBpDSNSGpp5V-zG2V4Vt7RdTLT-ZAuLQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: bgworker crashed or not?  (Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: bgworker crashed or not?
List pgsql-hackers
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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: includedir_internal headers are not self-contained