On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 01:44:55PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> It is not at all clear to me if you are advocating for the flag to be
> called INTERRUPTABLE or to be called PROTECTED?
Actually, INTERRUPTABLE is still wrong. INTERRUPTIBLE reads more like
correct English.
> IIUC, behaviour-wise it ultimately ends up the same, just the flags
> are different names with opposite meanings and defaults. Still, you
> need to choose ASAP because this decision touches a lot of code,
> comments and tests.
Well, not exactly. I think that there is a pretty good argument in
not breaking an existing behavior silently, which is what PROTECTED is
about.
> It seems that when Michael wrote, there were "more advantages in ...
> make a bgworker interruptible an opt-in choice" [1], he is favouring
> keeping it as the INTERRUPTABLE flag -- e.g. discard patch 0002. Am I
> reading this thread correctly?
You are reading that right: I do not see a point in 0002.
The timing is interesting, I have put my hands on this patch this
morning before you sent your last email, and adjusted the thing in
many ways, finishing with the attached. This includes changes in the
tests to address what I found was lacking and slightly incorrect, new
names for the flag and its related variables, copyright update to
2026, as well as an additional sanity check when starting the workers,
leading to the updated version attached. The CI is happy with it.
Thoughts or comments about that?
--
Michael
