Thread

RE: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE

Aya Iwata (Fujitsu) <iwata.aya@fujitsu.com> — 2025-12-24T08:42:51Z

Hi

> FWIW, while reading this code, I was wondering about one improvement
> that could show benefits for more extension code than only what we are
> discussing here because external code has no access to
> BackgroundWorkerSlot while holding the LWLock BackgroundWorkerLock in
> a single loop, by rewriting this new routine with something like that:
> void TerminateBackgroundWorkerMatchin(
> bool (*do_terminate) (int pid, BackgroundWorker *, Datum))
> 
> Then the per-database termination would be a custom routine, defined
> also in bgworker.c.  Other extension code could define their own
> filtering callback routine.  Just an idea in passing, to let extension
> code take more actions on bgworker slots in use-based on a PGPROC
> entry, like a role ID for example, or it could be a different factor.
> Feel free to dislike such a funky idea if you do not like it and say
> so, of course.

I'm sorry for the delayed response.
I tried implementing a callback function within the for loop to allow setting the termination
condition myself. However, I felt this method had few use-cases. Since LWlock exists in here, it can
only handle lightweight operations.
Therefore, I'd prefer not to include it at this time. If I later think of a useful scenario for it, I'll 
reconsider about this.

Best Regards,
Aya Iwata