Horton

Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-08-06T02:56:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

Hi,

On 2021-08-05 20:02:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > First, what do we want to do with BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS? I'm inclined to treat
> > it as a required flag going forward.
> 
> +1
> 
> > The second question is what we want to do in the backbranches. I think the
> > reasonable options are to do nothing, or to make !BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS an
> > error in SanityCheckBackgroundWorker() if EXEC_BACKEND is used.
> 
> I think doing nothing is fine.  Given the lack of complaints, we're
> more likely to break something than fix anything useful.

Done in the attached patch. I don't think we need to add more to the docs than
the flag being required?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Commits

  1. Remove support for background workers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS.

  2. Detach shared memory from bgworkers without shmem access.