public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Aya Iwata (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
To: 'Peter Smith' <[email protected]>
To: Michael Paquier <[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, 20 Nov 2025 06:57:47 +0000
Message-ID: <OS7PR01MB119645F36D5D4680189EA653EEAD4A@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OS7PR01MB11964AC66E36D8EAE1DAD1440EAF2A@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]>
<OS7PR01MB119642C7C0E94E767DB7000C1EAE9A@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAHut+PsN3jsKFtsnkwM+0x0Ak4g2dmCaQjb2r=GbX=T+AGRP2w@mail.gmail.com>
<OS7PR01MB11964AC66E36D8EAE1DAD1440EAF2A@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Hi
Perhaps you haven't seen my previous post.
> > FWIW, while reading this code, I was wondering about one improvement
> > that could show benefits for more extension code than only what we are
> > discussing here because external code has no access to
> > BackgroundWorkerSlot while holding the LWLock BackgroundWorkerLock in
> > a single loop, by rewriting this new routine with something like that:
> > void TerminateBackgroundWorkerMatchin(
> > bool (*do_terminate) (int pid, BackgroundWorker *, Datum))
> >
> > Then the per-database termination would be a custom routine, defined
> > also in bgworker.c. Other extension code could define their own
> > filtering callback routine. Just an idea in passing, to let extension
> > code take more actions on bgworker slots in use-based on a PGPROC
> > entry, like a role ID for example, or it could be a different factor.
> > Feel free to dislike such a funky idea if you do not like it and say
> > so, of course.
>
> Thank you for your advice.
> I'd like to address that, but I couldn't figure out how to do it on my own.
> Could you please describe it more?
I'd like to adapt the patch for this, so could you tell me with the details?
Regards,
Aya Iwata
Fujitsu Limited
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]
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE
In-Reply-To: <OS7PR01MB119645F36D5D4680189EA653EEAD4A@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