Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Julien Rouhaud
Subject Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade
Date
Msg-id CAOBaU_b5rFUz=7ikwfONMsdq7LHh37JFQSriWHvtUx9SjGUmLg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 12:41 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> Perhaps.  That feels like a topic different than what's discussed
> here, though, because we don't really need to check if a bgworker has
> been launched or not.  We just need to make sure that it never runs in
> the context of a binary upgrade, like autovacuum.

I'm a bit confused.  Did you mean checking if a bgworker has been
*registered* or not?

But my point was that preventing a bgworker registration as a way to
avoid it from being launched may lead to some problem if an extensions
decides that a failure in the registration is problematic enough to
prevent the startup altogether for instance.  I'm ok if we decide that
it's *not* an acceptable behavior, but it should be clear that it's
the case, and probably documented.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: create table like: ACCESS METHOD
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target