public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Aya Iwata (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
To: 'Pavel Stehule' <[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: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 11:47:31 +0000
Message-ID: <OS7PR01MB1196405302B700736580DEE49EAA8A@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFj8pRCn0=jn4yaeg1JoxxxnUNeXm1KCouES8Puq_GgBsXrNTQ@mail.gmail.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>
<CAFj8pRCn0=jn4yaeg1JoxxxnUNeXm1KCouES8Puq_GgBsXrNTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Pavel-san
Thank you for your feedback!
> From: Pavel Stehule <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 12:33 AM
> To: Iwata, Aya/岩田 彩 <[email protected]>
> Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>; Peter Smith <[email protected]>; Chao Li <[email protected]>; Kuroda, Hayato/黒田 隼人 <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE
>> 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).
It is our intention; this feature would enable when developer expressly set.
> 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.
That's right, "interruptable" may not be appropriate. This is because even bgworkers without this flag set can be interrupted by sigterm.
Hmm, I feel these ideas may not be clear what it does. Do someone have other idea?
> 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?
In my understanding, you are suggesting that the bgworker which set bgw_restart_time as BGW_NEVER_RESTART is not terminated by DROP/ALTER, right?
Do you think what kind of use cases might there be?
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: <OS7PR01MB1196405302B700736580DEE49EAA8A@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.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