On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 19 September 2017 at 18:04, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>
>> wrote:
>>> If you are asking why they are not identified by the
>>> BackgroundWorkerHandle, then it's because it's private struct and can't
>>> be shared with other processes so there is no way to link the logical
>>> worker info with bgworker directly.
>
>> I really want BackgroundWorkerHandle to be public, strong +1 from me.
>
> I'm confused about what you think that would accomplish. AFAICS, the
> point of BackgroundWorkerHandle is to allow the creator/requestor of
> a bgworker to verify whether or not the slot in question is still
> "owned" by its request.
>
Right, but can we avoid maintaining additional information (in_use,
generation,..) in LogicalRepWorker which is similar to bgworker worker
machinery (which in turn can also avoid all the housekeeping for those
variables) if we have access to BackgroundWorkerHandle?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
