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
-
Remove support for background workers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS.
- 80a8f95b3bca 15.0 landed
-
Detach shared memory from bgworkers without shmem access.
- 4d155d8b08fe 9.4.0 cited