public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Pavel Stehule <[email protected]>
To: Aya Iwata (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: Chao Li <[email protected]>
Cc: Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 16:33:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFj8pRCn0=jn4yaeg1JoxxxnUNeXm1KCouES8Puq_GgBsXrNTQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OS7PR01MB119648203BD748ED008FA5BF5EAABA@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<OSCPR01MB1496614832F8014EC16FB78D2F5EEA@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<OSCPR01MB14966EC12277712131EB8EDF1F5EEA@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<OS7PR01MB11964C8FE9CDCC0F4C9110988EAEEA@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<OS7PR01MB11964C077A3E61F4887DD3D09EAEFA@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAHut+PtbOP_80OPZXCUZO=-pBJSRTmHcQ2MnVTFov1meNbw18Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHut+Pt5BN0LDh7OzbNqh9+zqHBgsrLX+vh-gn+3FKYTFHMvhw@mail.gmail.com>
<TY3PR01MB11969CBD6DF3E0DB820AD4262EAE8A@TY3PR01MB11969.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAFj8pRB_FH-Pcth9XFcpY2OTasVOP-2DfYOsVxL38igw0O4hdg@mail.gmail.com>
<OS7PR01MB119647141272DBF9364A1C5AAEAADA@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAFj8pRCRnN4SyZDPbQwTyKZ_kVHfwLG6udCXsXDTG_z9fWwYQg@mail.gmail.com>
<OS7PR01MB119648203BD748ED008FA5BF5EAABA@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Hi
st 17. 12. 2025 v 14:31 odesÃlatel Aya Iwata (Fujitsu) <
[email protected]> napsal:
> Hi Pavel-san,
>
> >> So maybe there should be ALTER DATABASE ... RENAME ... FORCE - or if
> FORCE can terminare all workers (without special FLAG) ?
> >
> > For the proposed feature, we've added a flag allowing each extension
> developer to decide whether to terminate it via DROP/ALTER DATABASE.
> > Adding a FORCE option to ALTER to let database definition modifiers
> decide whether to force termination of background workers might be better
> discussed in a separate thread.
> >
> > When I thought about it - there can be a second alternative.
> >
> > Introduce a pair of flags BGWORKER_INTERRUPTABLE and BGWORKER_PROTECTED
> (the names can be enhanced or changed). BGWORKER_INTERRUPTABLE can be
> default.
> > ALTER DATABASE RENAME and related commands can stop any non protected
> workers. ALTER DATABASE RENAME FORCE can stop any workers (including
> protected).
>
> I can't image any use cases for BGWORKER_PROTECTED. Do you have any idea?
> Also, I think the parameter settings might get a complicated.
> If we start discussing the "FORCE" option, it is better to think about
> this parameter.
>
> > Is there any reason why BGWORKER_INTERRUPTABLE cannot be default?
> Probably nobody would block some possibly common operations on database
> level without strong reason.
>
> As Michael-san mentioned in a previous email, this behavior has remained
> unchanged since bgworkers were introduced in v9.3.
> I don't see a compelling reason to alter it now. Additionally, this
> specification can be modified later.
>
I understand the request for unchanging behaviour - but I am not sure if
this concept is really helpful - or if the naming is best. I am afraid so
this feature without changing the workers code is useless (and maybe it is
wanted).
Any worker should be interruptable by sigterm. And then the
name BGWORKER_INTERRUPTABLE is little bit vague. Maybe some
like BGWORKER_CAREFREE_INTERRUPTABLE can be better (or some like this -
maybe BGWORKER_CANCELABLE)? This can be a signal from bgworker's authors -
it is ok to kill the worker anytime when it is necessary.
Some workers can have the flag BGW_NEVER_RESTART - cannot be used as signal
so this worker is protected, and others can be terminated safely, because
they will be restarted after 60 seconds?
Regards
Pavel
>
> Best Regards,
> Aya Iwata
>
view thread (67+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE
In-Reply-To: <CAFj8pRCn0=jn4yaeg1JoxxxnUNeXm1KCouES8Puq_GgBsXrNTQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox