On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:29 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> > Do you think that it's okay that we rely on the propagation of global
> > state to parallel workers on Postgres 13? Don't we need something like
> > my fixup commit 49f49def on Postgres 13 as well? At least for the
> > EXEC_BACKEND case, I think.
>
> Uh ... *what* propagation of global state to parallel workers? Workers
> fork off from the postmaster, not from their leader process.
>
> (I note that morepork is still failing. The other ones didn't report
> in yet.)
Evidently my fixup commit 49f49def was written in way too much of a
panic. I'm going to push a new fix shortly. This will make workers do
their own GetAccessStrategy(BAS_VACUUM), just to get the buildfarm
green.
REL_13_STABLE will need to be considered separately. I still haven't
figured out how this ever appeared to work for this long. The
vac_strategy/bstrategy state simply wasn't propagated at all.
--
Peter Geoghegan
