From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Antonin Houska <antonin.houska@gmail.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: bgworker crashed or not?
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoY-ra-4ScB5=pnZmqi19OadzzM=GDKn_qvm1D+6mJ15zA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52EBE0E0.8040303@gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoY-ra-4ScB5=pnZmqi19OadzzM=GDKn_qvm1D+6mJ15zA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
 message dated "Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:15:14 -0500"
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:20:57 -0500
Message-ID: <30853.1391440857@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> This is admittedly a weird API, and we've had some discussion of
> whether to change it, but I don't know that we've reached any final
> conclusion.  I'm tempted to propose exactly inverting the current
> meaning of exit(0).  That is, make it mean "don't restart me, ever,
> even if I have a restart interval configured" rather than "restart me
> right away, even if I have a restart interval configured".  That way,
> a background process that wants to run until it accomplishes some task
> could be written to exit(1) on error and exit(0) on success, which
> seems quite natural.

So
	exit(0)	- done, permanently
	exit(1) - done until restart interval
	exit(other) - crash
and there's no way to obtain the "restart immediately" behavior?

I think this is an improvement, but it probably depends on what
you think the use-cases are for bgworkers.  I can definitely see
that there is a need for a bgworker to be just plain done, though.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers