Re: Autovacuum worker doesn't immediately exit on postmaster death

Greetings,

* Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote:
> > * Michael Paquier (michael@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:07:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > > >> Thanks for that.  Attached is just a rebased version with a commit
> > > >> message added.  If there aren't any other concerns, I'll commit this in
> > > >> the next few days and back-patch it.  When it comes to 12 and older,
> > > >> does anyone want to opine about the wait event to use?  I was thinking
> > > >> PG_WAIT_TIMEOUT or WAIT_EVENT_PG_SLEEP ...
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure if we should back-patch this, but I think if you do you
> > > > should just add a wait event, rather than using a generic one.
> > > 
> > > I would not back-patch that either, as this is an improvement of the
> > > current state.  I agree that this had better introduce a new wait
> > > event.  Even if this stuff gets backpatched, you won't introduce an
> > > ABI incompatibility with a new event as long as you add the new event
> > > at the end of the existing enum lists, but let's keep the wait events
> > > ordered on HEAD.
> > 
> > Adding CFI's in places that really should have them is something we
> > certainly have back-patched in the past, and that's just 'an improvement
> > of the current state' too, so I don't quite follow the argument being
> > made here that this shouldn't be back-patched.
> > 
> > I don't have any problem with adding into the older releases, at the end
> > of the existing lists, the same wait event that exists in 13+ for this
> > already.
> > 
> > Any other thoughts on this, particularly about back-patching or not..?
> 
> We seem to be at a bit of an impasse on this regarding back-patching,
> which seems unfortunate to me, but without someone else commenting it
> seems like it's stalled.
> 
> I'll go ahead and push the change to HEAD soon, as there doesn't seem to
> be any contention regarding that.

Done.

Thanks!

Stephen