On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> The changes here make it impossible to write a bgworker which properly
>> works in 9.3 and 9.4. Was that intended? If so, the commit message
>> should mention the compatibility break...
>
> Yeah, sorry, I probably should have mentioned that. The structure
> needs to be fixed size for us to store it in shared memory.
>
>> If it was intended I propose changing the signature for 9.3 as
>> well. There's just no point in releasing 9.3 when we already know which
>> trivial but breaking change will be required for 9.4
>
> I think that would be a good idea. And I'd also propose getting rid
> of bgw_sighup and bgw_sigterm in both branches, while we're at it.
> AFAICT, they don't add any functionality, and they're basically
> unusable for dynamically started background workers. Probably better
> not to get people to used to using them.
+1. Much better to take that pain now, before we have made a production release.
--Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
