Subject: Re: Support worker_spi to execute the function dynamically.

From: Andres Freund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:34:15 -0700

Hi,

On 2023-07-28 13:45:29 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Having each bgworker on its own schema would be enough to prevent
> conflicts, but I'd like to add a second thing: a check on
> pg_stat_activity.wait_event after starting the workers.  I have added
> something like that in the patch I have posted today for the custom
> wait events at [1] and it enforces the startup sequences of the
> workers in a stricter way.

Is that very meaningful? ISTM the interesting thing to check for would be that
the state is idle?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

---

From: Michael Paquier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:38:00 +0900

> Is that very meaningful? ISTM the interesting thing to check for would be that

That's interesting for the sake of the other patch to check that the
custom events are reported.  Anyway, I am a bit short in time, so I
have applied the simplest fix where the dynamic workers just use a
different base ID to get out of your way.
--
Michael