Re: [HACKERS] background sessions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Borodin
Subject Re: [HACKERS] background sessions
Date
Msg-id CAJEAwVEN0sHUVR2e06=L9gyaJ0JNhs5rLeW6T2m-vUjT+g1TMg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] background sessions  (amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] background sessions  (amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
2017-01-04 10:23 GMT+05:00 amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>:
> One more query, can we modify
> BackgroundSessionStart()/BackgroundSession struct to get background
> worker PID as well?
I think since session always has a PID it's absoultley reasonable to return PID.

> I can understand this requirement could be sound useless for now,
> because it only for the benefit of pg_background contrib module only.
As far as i can unserstand BackgroundSession is not just a feature
itself, it's the API. So PID would benefit to pg_background and all
API use cases we didn't implement yet. I do not think that one PID in
structure will waste huge amount of memory, cycles, dev time,
readbility of docs, clearness of API etc. AFAIK the only reason may be
if the PID is not always there.

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables