public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
To: Peter Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: Aya Iwata (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <[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: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 14:38:06 +0900
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHut+PtZh+B_-z_TzmToUhL4-sBrf7dfH0uAb7VU-jkXFmHQSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OS7PR01MB119648203BD748ED008FA5BF5EAABA@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAFj8pRCn0=jn4yaeg1JoxxxnUNeXm1KCouES8Puq_GgBsXrNTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<OS7PR01MB1196405302B700736580DEE49EAA8A@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAFj8pRBk7zTKoxAAKAihNQuimztniWHPyRWHKp2iHq_2hH+dvQ@mail.gmail.com>
<OS7PR01MB11964C83E8E543743581250B0EAB3A@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAHut+PvP6H2soK05c_0JZC8--=h4nWEtxYE_nJGjRkQr=25F1w@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAHut+PtSVYKU4vfaRev4FMdbeZ3ukvxRy4X7uK05jv_9WMYafA@mail.gmail.com>
<OS7PR01MB1196426354C0294148A06AC65EA86A@OS7PR01MB11964.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAHut+PtZh+B_-z_TzmToUhL4-sBrf7dfH0uAb7VU-jkXFmHQSA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 08:18:39AM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> This did not seem like the correct fix for my previous review comment
> [1, comment #3], because the autovacuum backends are still killed with
> SIGTERM, right?
Yes, you are right that this creates a confusing mix. Bgworkers have
no relationship with SIGTERM in this code. I have added a sentence to
document the new behavior for interruptible bgworkers, after the
existing ones. One thing that was also missing is the fact that the
wait can be shortened with the injection point.
> 2.
> +# Confirm that the non-interruptible bgworker is still running.
> +my $result = $node->safe_psql(
> + "postgres", qq(
> + SELECT count(1) FROM pg_stat_activity
> + WHERE backend_type = 'worker_spi dynamic';));
>
> The indentation of the "SELECT" still does not look correct to me. Did
> you run pgperltidy on this file?
perltidy is happy with that, because it considers the string within
the quoted qq() area as something fine. At the end this is just a tab
vs whitespace issue, you are right that this should use whitespaces.
I have done a couple of test runs in the CI to be sure, and noticed no
instability in the tests, so applied. I'll keep an eye on the CFbot
and the buildfarm for the next few days.
--
Michael
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (833B, 2-signature.asc)
download
view thread (15+ 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: <[email protected]>
* 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