Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-08-02T15:00:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> If you're saying that this code has been 100% broken for 7 years and
> nobody's noticed until now, then that suggests that nobody actually
> uses non-shmem-connected bgworkers. I sort of hate to give up on that
> concept but if we've really gone that many years without anyone
> noticing obvious breakage then maybe we should.

Well, the problem only exists on Windows so maybe this indeed
escaped notice.  Still, this is good evidence that the case isn't
used *much*, and TBH I don't see many applications for it.
I can't say I'm excited about putting effort into fixing it.

			regards, tom lane



Commits

  1. Remove support for background workers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS.

  2. Detach shared memory from bgworkers without shmem access.