On 03/10/2016 21:27, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Julien Rouhaud
> <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com> wrote:
>> I've already fixed every other issues mentioned upthread, but I'm facing
>> a problem for this one. Assuming that the bgworker classes are supposed
>> to be mutually exclusive, I don't see a simple and clean way to add such
>> a check in SanityCheckBackgroundWorker(). Am I missing something
>> obvious, or can someone give me some advice for this?
>
> My advice is "don't worry about it". If somebody thinks of something
> that can be usefully added there, it will take very little time to add
> it and test that it works. Don't get hung up on that for now.
>
Ok, thanks!
Please find attached v9 of the patch, adding the parallel worker class
and changing max_worker_processes default to 16 and max_parallel_workers
to 8. I also added Amit's explanation for the need of a write barrier
in ForgetBackgroundWorker().
I'll add this patch to the next commitfest.
--
Julien Rouhaud
http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org
